RE: Corporate Presentation9 Feb 2022 22:09
Chen, it’s the extent of the dilution you tend to see through IPO’s in comparison to an internal raise that is the issue. I’ll use my example of KAT, plus they’re a JV partner of POW so it won’t be too dissimilar as I imagine Haneti will eventually be IPO’d also.
KIBO owned a number of exploration licences, alongside its power projects. To assist in funding exploration it IPO’d KAT. The result was that KIBO the owned just 50% of KAT, so effectively now 50% of the exploration licences. Move on a couple of years, KAT has had to carry out a number of its own raises, which KIBO couldn’t afford to participate without doing a raise of its own. KIBO now holds just 20% of KAT. To add to this, KAT is looking to IPO its most progressed project out of the two it has, whilst retaining an initial 45% interest. The default is that rather than diluting itself, but retaining 100% interest in a project, KIBO will now only own 20% of a 45% interest. Yes, it has avoided overly diluting itself, but it would have retained 100% interest. Now, due to IPO’s it has a near worthless interest in a project.
For reference, I am a holder of POW also, but do not see the IPO’s as the most beneficial means in the long term. POW would be better moth balling a number of projects until it has made a decent sum through a sale on another.
Following my earlier comment, KAV already have funding to drill the KCB. It would likely be more advantageous to carry out the initial drill, then see what options are available. Rather than IPO Kanye as Paul Johnson has indicated a number of times as both KAV and POW would lose a significant interest, unless they participate in the raise.
In a simplistic manner, each time you lose 50% interest through an IPO, you have to double the value of a project just to return to your starting position.