Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Firstly in truth in posting, if you quote in reply to a post quote fully or using same partial phrase or not at all.
1. Hourly wages and consulting pay are NOT salary and both get paid by, rather unnoticed here, share sales at going PPS.
2. Mexus was open and transparent, hardly secret, about paying costs at Elena when MarMar began to violate contract requirements until Mexus filed to recover the claims
Ask your new lawyer Ulises about that and if He says there is none...we will shut his mouth with papers and media video.
It's a symbiotic relationship. Both need each other, and arguably the company need shareholders more than shareholders need a company.
With that being said, there are times companies need to take actions that have an adverse impact on shareholders. Restructuring a company the way RNVA is proceeding is a good example of that. However, there's a limit to how much BS shareholders will tolerate.
But this whole discussion started with a poster asking if technically the value of shares remain the same after a R/S. I responded that technically that's a true statement. However, that doesn't automatically translate into a good (or bad) outcome for shareholders. It depends on what actions the company take after the R/S.
And to your point, the actions the company takes post R/S may be good for the company but not for the shareholders. Time will tell.
My issue is posters who express unequivocally that RNVA doing a R/S is going to be a good thing for shareholders. That is not a factual statement.
Absolutely agree those are good things.
My concern are the warrants, especially those held by Sabby and how much dilution is going to be needed to cover them?
Dude... you're the one telling me I don't understand.
I gave you my rationale on why a R/S followed by dilution to pay off debt isn't a positive for shareholders. I'm waiting to hear your explanation of why that would be a positive.
If the sold shares are used to buy assets like more hospitals then yes and R/S can be a good thing.
The jury is still out on what will happen. Until the R/S happens and the company takes it's action we won't know. I also wasn't here for the other R/S. However, I think it's naive to not have some concern that this R/S could follow the same pattern as the previous ones.
Ah... yes, the old this time it will be different argument.
It very well could be this time is different and not a ploy to dilute and use shareholders as an ATM. But nobody knows with any certainty.... and the CEO hasn't exactly acted on the up and up (backdated 8-k and board votes granting disproportionate voting rights to holders of preferred shares).
If a R/S occurs and is done to facilitate growth (i.e.acquire assets), then I agree the R/S is a good thing for shareholders. If it is being done to help finance debt and offset operational expenses, then it's not a good thing for shareholders.
So it is your position that the last 4 R/S this company did was good for shareholders?
I'd appreciate hearing your rationale of this position.
I must respectfully disagree.
At this point using dilution to pay off debt is not good for current shareholders. All this does is split the current pie into smaller pieces.
As a shareholder my share doesn't gain more value by selling more shares to someone else to pay off a debt. It means I get less of the revenue if/when the company achieves profitability.
Pretty sure the financials from Mexus over the last 5-10 years have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the property is not economic.
Let's hear your take on the situation. Are you sure this property is economic?
Just because two entities are fighting over an object doesn't mean the object is valuable.
Technically, yes.
But the question is; Will float remain the same after the R/S or will the company issue (sell) the available shares and further dilute your share's value?
Too a certain degree what the company does with the money if they sell the available shares also matters. (i.e. Will the money be used to pay of debt or buy more assets?)
Not sure who to believe anymore. I don't really trust Garcia anymore than I do Mexus.
What attorney would sign off as "Head of the Legal Department, Mexus Gold Mining SA de CV.
Typically attorney's would use their own firm's contact information in their signature line.
Is this the same legal mind that uses allows the company to use LOI as "Lots of Interest?"
Respectfully
Lic. David Ulises Franco Armendariz
Head of the Legal Department
Mexus Gold Mining SA de CV
Mexico.
This does not mean a R/S won't happen before the end of the year. The context of this quote matters significantly. Some are really struggling with understanding this.
This tweet was made during the time the board was requesting sharholders authorize an increase in A/S to 3 billion shares and allow a R/S. The tweet was a response to a question essentially asking if a R/S was still going to happen. Around that time the company realized it did not have the votes for a R/S and pulled the request. Since the R/S was not being put to vote Seamus correctly stated the company cannot do a R/S as it was already publicly known the request was pulled by the company. Only the increase in A/S was presented to shareholders for a vote and passed.
This tweet does not mean (and was not meant to infer) that no R/S would happen in the future. It was only meant in response that a R/S could not happen at that time as part of the shareholder vote.
Since this tweet was made the company has filed a 14C announcing it has the approval to perform a R/S anytime between now and September 2019.
The timing has not been determined. It may or may not happen in 2018. But it can happen if and when Seamus and the Board decides they want to do it.
@seamuslaganRH
Jun 21
More
We cannot do a reverse split. That information is already in the public domain
I would also want the company to use the A/S to create cash for growth, but I don't see that being the intention for the R/S. In a recent PR the CEO indicated the increase in A/S and/or R/S was needed to cover already issued debt obligations.
I guess it's all in how you foresee the company using the available share after the R/S. If you think they'll use it to buy more hospitals and increase assets and revenue, then yes the R/S is a good thing.
If you think it's going to be used a way to pay off current debt, your ownership % will be decreased along with the value of your remaining shares then it's not such a good thing.
If past history is any indication of future behavior, debt reduction through dilution is the most likely outcome.
An R/S does not create new shares but it does transfer outstanding shares from shareholders hands to the company's hands.
Right now, RNVA has 3 billion available shares. Supposedly they have all been issued so it also has 3 billion outstanding shares.
If a 100:1 R/S is done, RNVA will still have 3 billion available shares, but it will only have 30 million outstanding share - leaving 270 million shares available for the company to "resell".
So to Lowtrade's point, the R/S itself doesn't negatively (or positively) impact the shareholders value. But if the company again expands (sells) the number of outstanding shares back to 3 billion after performing the R/S, then shareholder value is reduced.
I don't disagree that all companies dilute. I disagree that shreholders will maintain thier current owwnership % and value after a R/S in this situation.
Your rationale assumes the company won't issue the newly available shares created by the R/S.
Based on the company's history, I don't share that confidence and believe the R/S is a means for more dilution.
There is no business parlance where LOI means anything other than "Letter of Intent". To infer otherwise is deceitful.
Also, was this information you are sharing made available to us peon common shareholders or only to specific investors?
A R/S and/or increase in AS has not been approved... yet. However a Pre-14C has been filed putting shareholders on notice of a potential R/S and or increase in AS.
The concern is from now until September 30th, the board has granted special voting rights for preferred stock holders that gives the CEO majority control of the shareholder vote. In other words, anytime Seamus wants to do either a R/S or increase in AS between now and September 30th he can do it.
I hope he does the r/s so I can grab more cheap shares after dilution to cost average
Could be the BOD wanted to do both immediately and Seamus asked them to give him til 9/30 to see what he can do without them first...
Don't forget, the Board of Directors are complicit in this as well. Especially since they granted the special, short-term shareholder voting powers to Seamus.
In doing so, they all gave the middle finger to the rest of the shareholders.
He didnt even mention/ask about the possible AS increase and RS forms that were filed before Q2 was filed.
The R/S in May 2018 was cancelled but there was a Pre 14C filed in August proposing a R/S and/or increase in available shares.
Additionally, through at least September 30th, Seamus has enough votes to approve either or both the R/S and increase in shares without any further shareholder or board approval needed.
No one knows for sure what he will do, but that's an awful lot of work just to head fake MM's and weak handed shareholders.
I believe the answers are very obvious...
Not sure I follow your logic.
Scenario 1
Let's say I buy in today when current price is .001. with 3 billion available shares (we'll assume no increase in available shares).
Say I buy 30 million shares (1% of available shares) at $30,000.
The company then does a 1/100 reverse split. I now own 30,000 shares (.01%) of available shares at a theoretical value of $1.00 per share.
However the company has 2.7 million in available shares to sell (again). As those shares are sold off, price will drop back down into penny or sub penny prices - let's be generous and say $.10 per share.
The 30 million shares I purchased at $30,000 have now been reduced 30,000 shares worth $.10 each making my investment worth $3,000.
Scenario 2]
I wait until after the reverse split. By 300,000 shares at $.10 per share for $30,000.
Scenario 1 Results - 30,000 share worth $3,000 (and ownership .01% of available shares)
Scenario 2 Results - 300,000 shares worth $30,000 (and .10% ownership of available shares)
You'd be better off waiting until after the R/S and dilution to buy in.
What exactly would be the impact of a reverse split and why would a reverse split even be considered right now?
Why increase the AS and simultaneously announce RS?
Also, why have insiders increased their holdings?
This is a good stock to own, but don't expect any penny until 2019.
it is when you compare it to 3 billion...
LOL..U LOOKING AT THE WRONG THING..$45M NET INCOME..IS..KEY
New flow-95m of that is deravitive liabilities-warrants, hence the need for 7 b new shares -take all this out -45 m in revenue-that is key
It's the plans in the rural hospital sector, buying hospitals in same area as ones just purchased, along with the existing testing sector, increasing revs and looking for more, a plan for growth
A move up .0001 is not a price bump.
I'd like to know what people think is going to be in the 10-Q that is going to light-up share prices.
I don't foresee anything in a 10-Q that can overcome an impending 7 billion share increase and possible reverse split.
Too many hopes are being put into something that will not produce a bump in price. If the purchase of a hospital didn't increase price (and that was done increasing the number of shares by a measly 2.5 billion), a 10-Q showing hospital revenues - but no profit - won't either.
You have assessed and summed this situation up perfectly.
More than 4 M shares sold at 0.0009 and ask still the same 9M
So funny
What significant information do you think will be in the 10-Q that is going to cause a major uptick in price?
The hospitals have an extremely low chance of showing positive cash flow after less than 2 quarters of new ownership. Even if the hospitals were to show a profit, the overhanging cloud of dilution and R/S will hamper any chance of a stock price rally.
Look at it this way. If news about the acquisition of a hospital couldn't increase share price (and that only resulted in an increase of 2.5 billion available shares) then there isn't any info that can be put in a 10-q that will be able to offset a increase of 7 billion available shares.
What significant information do you think will be in the 10-Q that is going to cause a major uptick in price?
The hospitals have an extremely low chance of showing positive cash flow after less than 2 quarters of new ownership. Even if the hospitals were to show a profit, the overhanging cloud of dilution and R/S will hamper any chance of a stock price rally.
Look at it this way. If news about the acquisition of a hospital couldn't increase share price (and that only resulted in an increase of 2.5 billion available shares) then there isn't any info that can be put in a 10-q that will be able to offset a increase of 7 billion available shares.
Bravo, Sir. Well played.
We need to see what Seamus Lagan plans to do. All speculation right now.
It's a very well known Caborca landmark as the white quartz vein disappears into high peak separates Elena and Herradura beyond and well below, 500 M in 20 KM distant valley, the area 25 year model. The distinct buried in high peak quartz vein is what I quickly learned to call, "OK, we're there" several weeks area total.