Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Quady not understanding dilution is up there with the funniest things I've read on this board. Earlier this week we had BBG not understanding at a UT was and now this. From someone who claims to have been investing for 40+ years too. Must have the luck of an Irishman.
In fact TMX has closed anything up to 9% higher than London for at least the last 8 trading days...
And remember, Canada is a global epicentre for mining finance...
M22 9.14 9.28
T23 8.9 8.99
W24 8.72 8.99
T25 9.11 9.28
F26 9.33 10.17
M29 9.79 10.17
T30 9.2 9.86
W01 9.2 9.86
SOLG closed at 9.86 on TMX...oddly quiet this morning...
Only £32k traded in the first 80 minutes...Offbook outnumbering Autotrades...
This happened last Wednesday and I thought then that the market might be expecting something...
Who knows...long overdue...
O/T Byron...1SN have posted a DFS with a Net of Tax IRR of 34% at the current tin price...
6.75p mid price and at last I'm in profit...
End of.
Vintage QUADSWALLOP! I’ve had a good chuckle at that this morning
It’s his classic playbook
Make a stupid error
Double down on it
Realise it and try and squirm out by rubbing dirt in others eyes
Next bit when he’s still humiliated and can’t wriggle out is to ignore the thread for a few days and come back onto something else
Well he started it again today for no reason..
Leave it Novice...try the filter button...I sleep easier and don't feel the need to respond to idiots...
Quady you DO own less of the company, it's just that your share of it is worth the same monetarily.
My argument most definitely does NOT say you've lost money !
read it again.
You have lost 50% of your SHARE of the company because the share count has doubled, but because the shares are still £1 a share your 100,000 shares are still worth what you paid for them.
You said "If you are permitted to purchase one share for every one you own according to you, you have not diluted."
If you are permitted to PURCHASE one share for every one you own you have now spent TWICE as much to own the same percentage of the company. If you don't spend anything then using your statement above you ARE diluted !
I'm not confusing anything
The SHARE price hasn't been diluted.
Your holding as a percentage of the shares in issue has been diluted by 50%.
Please read it again as you read what you wanted to see the last time.
So I'm going to have to filter them as I'm really not interested in their childish spat! It's gone on for far to long and has clogged this board up with "you said I said bo££ocks!"
Jezzoo dilution is where you end up owning less.
For example if shares were issued to give to directors you would be diluted as your stake would be worth less.
If you own ten percent of a million shares you're argument says you have lost money.
You haven't.
Let's try and explain this another way.
If you are permitted to purchase one share for every one you own according to you, you have not diluted.
That's correct but you have doubled your stake.
You are confusing control of a company with dilution, they are not the same.
Commenced*
I'm sure I read a rerate had commence here but can't remember who posted it?
Thankyou Jezzoo; you have also tried to explain the same thing I just wrote.
I hope Quady is able to understand your version better than mine.
But I fear that he is so autistic he is unable to relate to anything anyone else says, though.
You're wrong Quady,
if the shares are £1 each and there are 1 million shares and you own 100,000 shares you own 10%
If you create 1 million shares of £1 each you may well have 2 million £1 shares in issue and the company may well be worth 2 million pounds but unless they gave you 100,000 shares you would still have 100,000 shares which is now 5% of the shares in issue. You have been diluted by 50% by volume,your OWNERSHIP of the company has halved even though your £100k is still worth £100k if the share price stays at £1 a share.
The company hasn't been diluted because it's theoretically worth twice as much because of the share issue but you own half as much by % so you as a shareholder have been diluted.
There is a difference, if you had a controlling share, say 40% before the share issue, you wouldn't any more.
Kat2008, you are running a close second for the title most unintelligent poster on here.
The company has not diluted shareholders stake.
Yes there is twice as many share's but the shareholders are the same.
Your argument is false.
Let's say you cancelled those extra million shares and retained the money.
You would say by your argument that nothing had changed and dilution was avoided.
But that's not true your shares are now two pounds a share.
I really don't think you understand this.
Please stop clogging up this board with disruption.
Thanks.
Just cant help yourself can you tiny, you know exactly what you are up to and you need outing buddy.
END OF!
(and expect a pseudo sarcastic reply from the manchild)
You were crying on the board yesterday at me responding to you and here you are trying to engage wifh me once again. Did tell you admin, but thanks for ignoring him.
Quady - Dilution has occurred FOR THE ORIGINAL SHAREHOLDERS, as their % ownership of the company has halved.
That's why businesses offer a RIGHTS ISSUE, to allow existing shareholders to maintain their proportional ownership of the company and therefore their power.
This is GCSE Business Studies 101.
I don't need to tiny, already fully locked & loaded 😉
A watched kettle never boils buddy
55p someday soon!!!
So we can add the basics of trading shares to 'geopolitics' and 'contracts' to the "things Stackhigh has no f*cking clue about" list. This has been an amusing read.
Keeping an eye on this one.
G.L.A
😉
Stackhigh You're talking rubbish.
Addicknt is correct.
Let's say you have a company with million shares at one pound a share.
The market capitalisation is one million pounds.
Now you create another million shares.
You sell them at one pound a share.
You now have two million pounds, but the company now is worth two million pounds.
No dilution has occurred.
When a company issues more stock, the existing shareholders 'own the cash' but a smaller share of the company. Know what we call that? Dilution.
The fact these would be sold as a fund raise doesn't change the thing you're clearly not grasping, add. 155m shares weren't in circulation when Scott said there would not be dilution. Then they get sold, so we are back up to 3bn in circulation, and each PI owns less than they did when the statement was made. Are they going to use that cash to compensate holders for their reduced percentage? Nope.
As I explained to you yesterday, the company and by definition us, currently own those shares. If we sell them we will then own the cash. In other words, we simply swap one thing for another and there's no dilution involved. Not complicated, is it?
There would be another movement on the p&l and balance sheet and that relates to any profit or loss which is made on the share disposal. This would impact the net asset figure.
You've tied yourself in knots on this, perhaps it's time to retire gracefully?