SG2217 Nov 2023 17:09
You want a meaningful debate, that's fine.
I reproduce my post of 15 Nov 19.24 below in answer to yours of 18.40 the same day
"With a moniker like yours, it appears surprising that you apparently fail to understand that these organisations are not sitting of huge cash piles and reserves. If you have the latter, either you have the cash or you use it to leverage in debt set against assets and reserves.
If you have neither, as is the case with most exploration companies, you need to flog equity. Regrettably, it appears to dilute the value of others' holdings, but all in the hope that you can prove commensurate value, by using the cash wisely, to at least equalise the situation. In the case of PANR, its a case of proving up the asset and the means by which it can be extracted from the earth. It's all a bit 'jam tomorrow', but what's new? Once value is crystallised and it will be here, of that i am sure, then happy days.
In this case, we have an executive and a couple of like-minded investors who are prepared to provide the equity without too much of a call on the retail investors.....and what a blinder they are playing!"
I don't recall receiving a response.
I don't believe my post to be ramping merely a true representation of what goes on in explorer companies with a positive slant because
Firstly, I believe in the company, its current strategy, its management and what they appear to be achieving, and;
Secondly, I'm a shareholder.
The RNS of the same day covers financial solutions to the next two payments under the term agreement, leaving the next one you currently are taking issue with at some time toward the end of Q2 2024.
There's a lot of water to flow under the bridge until that juncture and the company has already stated that it is in discussion relative to other funding solutions with other parties. It is perfectly feasible, given further testing results are due, and negotiations may be ongoing, that we may never get to the point of having to raise the funds due in late Q2 2024 as alternatives may by then be in place. All of which you might consider to be the positive slant.
The negative slant as you appear pre-disposed to point out is that the current funding structure is not replaced, remains and will require a further payment in late Q2 2024.
I'm not sure anyone would disagree that, at this point, funds will need to be raised to pay that instalment, if the current structure remains in place. To assume it will lead to shareholder value dilution is wholly premature IMHO.
I fully accept you are entitled to your opinion in an open discussion forum, but I find your motivation somewhat difficult to understand.
Perhaps you would explain what it is?
Sign In
Follow the stocks
