RE: SP18 Mar 2026 08:51
LT, with regards to a) they are not really investors. They do not hold long enough to even be required to log a TR1.
If these 'investors' are able to forward sell discounted shares at higher prices before the true effect of the dilution is felt (as described by spodulike) then it is always a winning trade for them. They make instant profit and do not have to hold at all. They are not investing, they are trading and the discount makes it low risk.
The only good thing about it is that the company is highly likely to get some funds to fight another day. However, this is always at massive dilution to the existing shareholders and the benefit of that all depends on the capabilities of the board and how they intend to use that money, which brings us to point b).
Ok, critical funds have been earmarked for further studies but we have no idea what they are, how long they will take, what they cost nor what tangible benefit there is at the end. Yes, we are told it is to increase chances of getting a deal...but with who!? If we are at the due diligence stage then why is there still absolutely no evidence or proof that shareholders can see that a partner has said "if your shareholders pay for this then here's the deal"? There is nothing visible and I'm tired of hearing the old 'confidentiality' BS excuse.
If a partnership is really that close then why will they not even reveal their interest? It seems to me that if there really is an interested party then the shareholders are being held over a barrel where we are being forced to take all the risk with nothing in return. It feels more like crowdfunding than investing! What kind of partner will they be going forward?
The thing that makes it worse is that we are now being told that there are multiple partners! Shouldn't they actually be competing with each other?