I don't usually post but I think I know the likely reason they converted to a fixed conversion price. I'm not an auditor but I have worked with auditors on this particular issue. I believe that a variable conversion price requires them to record a derivative liability on the balance sheet, but not if the conversion price is fixed.
I have been watching some people's posts either pumping or bashing $EFLN. I want to point out one thing and it seems that even on the OTC where almost anything goes, there still must be a line drawn at some point between what is merely speculation and what is outright fraud. My opinion is that if the management of $EFLN is presenting financials with a $500MM valuation of the mining assets, then that estimate would need to be somewhere in the ballpark to the actual value. If not, then that would in my opinion be very misleading, even bordering on fraudulent.
The question then becomes what then does the valuation represent? There doesn't appear to be too much information regarding the process used to determine the value of this property. Is the $500MM considered the value of the precious metals locked up in the mines without consideration of the cost to mine them? Let's say this is the case, then we can estimate that the cost of mining is say 10% of the value ($50MM). Of course this is all very speculative, but you get the concept. The net value would be $450MM and the $50MM would certainly result in some dilution because the company has very little in the way if liquidity. They would need to issue new shares to their JV partner for handling the extraction process.
What net valuation would still be considered reasonable- $450MM, $300MM, $250MM? In my mind this is the question we should be asking and pushing to get answers for. The mining asset is the largest, most significant number on the $EFLN balance sheet.
Thanks for listening.