Thanks Snow.
Having met and talked to Nisse in China, I'm very glad he's decided to get more involved with this company than any other. Little doubt that he is the major influence in the move to FN and a bond offering possibility.
This part of his response is very encouraging:
"There are also alternatives to further accelerate growth and or
> Change its financing plan. The latter I can NOT in detail to speak of."
This may be saying that they have alternative plans to adopt one or more of the cost cutting things I suggested in lieu of financing thru straight equity, or more likely their own ideas. I interpret this to mean that curtailing capital expenditures is an alternative to acceptable means of financing (bond and or acceptably higher price). If the statement does not mean curtailing some marginal cap ex, then it must mean that there are equivalent non-publicly stated alternatives. I suppose this might mean a grander partner, for instance.
I'm all for expanding as quickly as possible, as long as the marginal capital is also accretive, or near so.
Imo, it's informative that Nisse responded so quickly, as he may well be prohibited from even this much after Jan 1. I am also aware that internal plans (including financial projections) are probably less conservative than public statements, as the company is restricted legally; and probably by perceived legal restrictions more than actual, particularly as linguistic tightrope walking is not their forte. This is an argument for a sharp spokesperson, who speaks English as a first language -- soon, another native Swedish speaking spokesperson.
In all honesty, I do not buy the patent and first mover argument, other than in general. It justifies pouring perhaps all current income, loans, and grants into growth, but not the marginal extra capital development if that final $15M dilutes eps 15%, let alone 30% (not to mention overhang).
