Builders don't seek council from developers to build. Developers are the money behind a project. Most times they provide the funds for the A and E and the entitlement process but they offer no tutelage to a builder for the actual construction.
You seem to not want to yield to the good explanations you are being provided and wish only to play devil's advocate.
The reality is that to the inexperienced it it far more expensive to build a home or a public company if you have no experience to do so. The "fees" you reference for getting advice or consultation from a knowledgeable consultant IS exactly the point here that you are missing. There is no static or statutory model. Each deal between merging entities depends on what each of the parties brings to the table. A profitable private company may wish to go public for many reasons and a public company with a clean share structure, low O/S, little or negligible debt, and no currently viable business is an attractive candidate for the private company to merge into.
Growth and expansion of operations is typically the reason a private company would do this. In a restrictive (bank) lending environment high rates or risk may make getting a conventional or non conventional loan unattractive. Raising capital for expansion by selling shares or in other words making a public offering spreads the risk for the current shareholders and creates an opportunity for the public to get a piece of a growing company at a discount from what the ops could become based on the expanded business operations being funded.
You and others seem consumed by the concept of dilution. It's not just about the number of shares sold by the company. This is how they raise capital. It's about what that capital will bring in future income. If profitable company abc has an o/s of 100 million shares and then sells 25 million shares at a par value of x to expand operations, and that company is already achieving a profit margin on sales of currently of "y" then if successful the company should achieve a PPS increase on those shares of x times 25% as there should be a net increase in income of 25% so long as their margin of "y" remains static. So if net income is $1m/year they expect to increase that to $1.25m/yr.
It's all about the metric between net income and the outstanding number of shares.
OTC has made you skeptical of what companies do with the money from share increases. That's understandable. But this is a reporting company and not a pink sheet. If you don't have the stomach for it there are other stocks that trade in a much less volatile environment on the big boards. Too much dancing around the pool, sticking your toe in and telling everyone how cold it is IMO. Getting in slowly doesn't make it any less cold and no one really wants to hear about it every 30 seconds.
