Member Info for chasf

Well, forward selling also shouldn't happen but there it is. Now we've got a load of warrants at 2.4 to undermine a steady rise above 2. On the positive side, someone will probably try to push it up to 2.4 just to be able to exercise them and get that profit. (At least the company gets some cash.)

I meant that TW seemed to have formed the impression somehow in an otherwise slightly downbeat report that funding might be sorted out before Christmas.

I suspect TW was made an insider to prevent any possibility of him writing about it (if he caught wind of it, which he often does), and he might have been offered some of the placing shares.

Indeed it is those frankly deceitful statements that I foolishly believed. He also gave TW the impression a month ago(?) that there would be something before Christmas.

Those "funding the placing" will have forward sold them at 0.9 to 1.10 and couldn't care less about TK.

I'm not at all sure now that it is.

I think they finally need to be completely clear about what's holding up TK finance.

We were lied to, strung along for months at higher price, and this placing price is a bad joke. I also don't like the implications for TK.

Someone's been running this up and down between .8 and 1.10 (no more no less) for ages using the book and low volume. That's all.

I was suggesting sarcastically that if the original reason for the bridging finance was to avoid dilution (when the price was much higher) they will extend the term rather than suffer even more dilution by placing now (with the price even lower). The original deadline of Nov was presumably chosen because everything was expected to be done by then, before the kidnapping episode.

I'm not sure why a group providing bridging finance specifically to avoid dilution when the shares were ~2p would suddenly go "you know what? we'll go for one now at 0.70, with roughly 3 times as much dilution! that makes so much sense!"

I had been wondering whether recent transactions included forward-sold shares backed by warrants but it's most unlikely. "As you were."

Ah, I see they exercised 15m of those in April in a footnote ("after the reporting date") and a mere 5m they'll just keep.

Thank you. It wasn't directors I was interested in particularly, but others, and the table on page 90 is what I needed:
Grant date Expiry date *Exercise price Expected Life Years Number of warrants 000's*
19-Sep-18 20-Sep-23 2.50p 5 years 2,000
02-Aug-19 02-Aug-22 2.50p 3 years 19,500
06 Jan 2020 06 Jan 2023 1.25p 3 years 7,450
29 May 2020 29 May 2023 0.65p 3 years 20,000
20 Nov 2020 20 Nov 2023 1.60p 3 years 11,175
total 60,125
and of those it was the 20m outstanding at 0.65p that I most wanted to know (they are Brandon Hill's),
since they are still in the money.

Dear lazyweb, is there a table showing how many warrants remain? I thought there were still some at the 0.65 level.

It would, however, be nice to know where they actually are for completing the deal.

I'd suppose the terms of the debt (ie, end of Nov) can be rolled forward, since the aim was to avoid dilution (and that was at 2p, let alone 0.83p). During the delay, costs would have been mainly paperwork and travel, not work on site, and that I'd suppose would therefore not have increased that debt dramatically beyond what was originally expected for October agreement.

They should focus on finally getting Ethiopia done, and not waste dilution on more holes in the ground in Saudi. I suppose if they do the former, they will probably place into the subsequent rise for the latter; that's not as bad.

ANS has nothing to do with it any more, has it?

The mirror shades always look good though