InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 39
Posts 986
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/05/2014

Re: Sleepy2016 post# 33102

Sunday, 09/13/2015 6:13:48 PM

Sunday, September 13, 2015 6:13:48 PM

Post# of 98440
This post is more realistic. This post I don't have anything against.

I myself am curious as to why the AS raise. 300mil would have easily covered 157mil.

One possibility is that loan they took out. This would be a good way to mitigate the conversion against shareholders.

By allowing shareholders to double their shares it would effectively half the effect of dilution on the loan on share price to the shareholders.

If I own 1mil shares on 77mil outstanding and let's say for example 3 mil are about to get diluted to pay for a loan. I would own 1.3% of the company. And there would be 4% dilution. I would only own 1.25% of the company.

However by allowing shareholders to
in effect double now I would own 2mil out of 154mil. But the loan would convert after the dividend, and now the share price is higher, so now they only get 2million. So 154/156mil is only 1.28% dilution. I would own 1.28% of the company still.

Make sense? And it's possible a certain number of shares have to be allocated to be collateral. So in order to do the dividend they had to raise the AS. But I'm not certain. Honestly I have had other things more important come up and I haven't been able to research into these matters thoroughly not effectively. Does anyone on the board have real information to offer?
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent NHMD News