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.
Agree with you, aandt.
However, they need to commit and set ex dates for cash dividends, so talking about it in the Q1-report itself about that SIAF is "going to" pay a dividend sometime is not going to help the PPS (especially not after the TRW-dividend they pulled on us last year), it will probably just harm us even more (heard it before, blah blah).
Wouldn't it be better to force SIAF to distribute the 12.71% TRW-shares they admit that they can distribute without incurring taxes for SIAF? To salvage some value (well, Solomon will still be in charge of TRW...)
What is your take on the "we can't distribute it in several steps since that will be manipulation of the PPS"? (I can't see the difference between a stock dividend and a cash dividend, but I wouldn't know what would count as manipulation) If they can split up the 12.71% then they could successfully defend the PPS for quite a while, while at the same time start to regain some credibility.
Will you let us assist/take part of that plan?
You're not giving them until the delayed Q1-report?
I have a good impression of Garret, but that also applies to Solomon
Garret is a business man though. If we're lucky he'll convert half for $1.5 which "only" gives us 3-4% additional dilution. We don't deserve that.
Even though he is a business man, I'm disappointed in him (and Solomon) for the tonic note. The note does protect Garret, but it does screw us and is a sure receipt for a low PPS until SIAF takes action. Garret doesn't need any additional shares, but the dilution from that toxic note (on top of the heavy dilution from ECAB and more) might actually make a severe damage to many retail shareholders (especially for those who has to sell soon, since the note probably depresses the PPS, and those who have very high averages for their shares).
You're disregarding the toxic note though. At the current PPS Garret can convert that 4MUSD loan into 19 million shares... Even if he is "kind" and only converts half of the loan, it's still close to 10 million shares... And the PPS is likely to go further down until SIAF actually steps up and protects the PPS.
As RD said; Garret should remove the 65% and just put a $1.5 convertion rate. That's still 2.6 million shares (or 1.3 for half the loan) which is bad enough for us retail shareholders (that's on top of the 340 000 shares as interest he already got).
I wonder what Solomon is spending his money on, since he made SIAF repay 1.8 MUSD to him in H1/17. Close to half the amount of the toxic note...
Not that SIAF should have any rights to borrow money from him, but the timing of the repayment is very, very bad for the company.
Sunblazers; there are actually three options, not two;
1) Forget ihub, forget SIAF, forget about your shares and just hold them. Come back when you're retired (well, at least wait a year or two)
2) Conclude that SIAF is a scam, that the current PPS is a fair value also for the future, and/or that you can't take the volatility and sell your shares
3) Step up and defend your investment from further dilution and/or take action otherwise.
For people like me who fear Dilution-Lee, the last alternative is the preferred one. The question is what can be done?
For people who can't hold on to their shares for very long (like RD, aandt and several other decent ihub'ers) this gets rather ugly. They can't choose the first alternative, and they can't live with the second (since they believe SIAF isn't a scam), but the third option might not be in their reach.
A mismatch between OTC and Merkur then, what a surprise...
apr 12 1,200,000 - no info on Merkur
apr 18 (N/A for OTC) - vs 1 200 000 other payables
apr 19 267,000 - no info on Merkur
apr 24 300,000 - no info on Merkur
may 2 166,500 vs 567 000 @ 0.55
may 3 2,020,202 - no info on Merkur
may 4 300,000 vs 2 186 702 @ 0.55
BTW; the may 4th on Merkur states 37 137 952 shares, while OTC states 37 437 952. Seems like they forgot to report one of the 300k (should be coming soon then)
However, both OTC and Merkur has 2 753 702 shares @ 0.55
Or SIAF could have issued more collateral (since they now that they will be returned) and have TRW repay that money to SIAF so that they could have avoided the toxic note...
Yes, closing price on April 11th - and March 14th as well.
From what I can see, on Merkur, it is only the May 2nd (567 000) and 4th (2 186 702) that has the 55 cents stated. The earlier ones states nothing about the share price. Rather confusing that the first possible ECAB-shares is round(ish) and the second is not (at all) vs 5 196 333 shares. So that leaves 2 442 631 more shares for ECAB, or they can be part of earlier share capital changes without any mentioning of a PPS.
My wild guess then is that the shares were made available to ECAB mid march and/or mid april when the PPS was 55 cents (or over time this year, but where the average of PPS upon being made available was an average of 55 cents), and that they now are reporting it to Oslo Børs.
That would mean that SIAF is breaching the rules at Merkur again, but the ECAB-shares should have been reported way earlier anyways. If ECAB is selling the shares, then that would be an even bigger breach since it then seems that SIAF and ECAB has agreed on distributing the shares in smaller parts to avoid filing it.
That makes it more confusing then, no?
Other payables on F-38;
*Due to third parties = 11.1MUSD - interest free and no fixed terms of repayment. Should not (...) be this
*Straight note payable = 29.4MUSD - ECAB
*Promissory notes issued to third parties = 11.1MUSD - classified as non-current liability
*Due to local government = 0.1
Solomon might be out of cash again, and is issuing shares to repay the part of the restructured ECAB-loan that is still a loan?
Or it is the ECAB-shares? (F-38 points to note 25 i which is the ECAB-note)
0.55 doesn't make much sense unless it's a deal they made March 13th or April 11th. Convertion of the toxic note maybe?
What if - instead of rewarding Solomon with 10% of the shares in the company - we strip him of all the shares he owns? Surely there must be some consequences for the largest breach of fiduciary duty Oslo Børs have ever seen?
lol Yes, one might suffocate from holding your breath with these guys.
Do you think there will still be a pre-IPO sale? I can't see anything about that in the 10-K, and the way they word it in the 10-K it seems like the pre-IPO is only a process leading up to the IPO, and not an actual pre-offering of shares.
Also, is there any point reason why they chose this underlining in the 10-K?
I don't know whether the auditor has that role, but the BOD - and especially the compensation commitee (or what they call it) - for sure has. Totally unheard of IMO, and no ordinary CEO should want such a deal either.
So what we have is a $/PPS before we rally, then he changes it into a fixed number of shares when the PPS increases, only to change it back when the PPS plummets?
That makes it even worse! It contradicts what is written in the admission document for Merkur...
Everything is connected to the loan
The only other explanations I can see to why they haven't had the CC yet is that they "forgot", i.e they are to scared (or annoyed) by the pissed of shareholders so they've decided to piss us of even more! lol Maybe they WANT to be sued so that they have an excuse to delay everything even more and/or go dark?
Well, I still believe that Solomon's intentions are to distribute the TRW-shares and start with cash dividends. The question is when (and how much dilution and horrible deals we have to endure first). Everything that SIAF does (including bad deals) points to that they have believed that the loan is right around the corner, so I'll put the cash-dividend-carrot in the 10-K + the delayed CC in the "the loan is right around the corner and then we can take care of those pesky shareholders" box.
So they only need that stability for 3 years - at some point - ahead of the IPO? I.e if they achieve that then they can - in theory - have say 10% control by the time of the IPO itself?
If the voting block needs to be stable (well, above 50%) until the IPO, then we have a problem since that means that none of the 32% can be sold in the pre-IPO if SIAF distributes the 18.3% now (SIAFs distribution will bring the block down to 50.3% and any sale (pre-IPO) of the 32% will bring it below the 50).
Anyways, that means that SIAFs distribution and the pre-IPO can't happen (well, not both) before the 3 year anniversary, i.e 2019. Hence at least one of the updates in the 10-K is a lie, we can't have both an imminent pre-IPO and a TRW-dividend in Q3, can we?
So it has nothing to do with ownership, just management? Then why is the voting block even a thing? If the 32% is sold in the pre-IPO then the voting block will change. If this is a management thing then TRW can't change CEO or BOD during the pre-IPO if they want to list in 2020?
Sorry if these are stupid questions, but I can't grasp this - given that what they have written in the 10-K is accurate.
If the ones in red are ECAB then we're looking at another 1 242 631 shares in increased OS over the next few days/weeks.