RE: Helpful9 Apr 2022 12:48
I don't think it's as bad as you lot are making out. The people who took place in that funding in 2020 did so when the oil price was sub $30. There was a huge amount of risk with that funding. I'm surprised the warrants were issued at such a high premium to the SP at the time. I'd have thought given the huge risk involved in the funding at the time, (due to oil price) investors would've wanted a lower strike price.
April 2020, Covid had only just started (time of funding we still weren't even in lockdown) and nobody could've envisaged what would turn out to be a 2 year worldwide economic slowdown. As such, I do think that the reasoning has some validity to it as what would've been discussed in that funding conversation in April 2020 couldn't have gone as expected due to the oil price not recovering for at least a year.
Yes the dilution isn't great, however the current SP is equal to the strike price so nobody will be exercising the warrants until the price is higher. IMO, not until at least .8p and even then I still think that's low, and I refer you to the evidence on that with the .3p warrants.
You have to ask yourself the question, why would Matt extend them if he didn't see the SP going up and face a bit of a backlash from some investors. It's because he sees the SP moving north and it gives those warrant holders a chance to earn some money from the warrants. Not sure why Steel is getting so mad about it, you've lost your money fella, 99% down. But for us holders who have a nice average, this move actually boosts my confidence that the SP has much room to move higher.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
