InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

snow

10/04/17 7:39 AM

#120490 RE: Trip-Fontaine #120488

Trip An alternative is to demand more collateral shares which is what has happened or demand that the loan be paid back ahead of time. My impression is that in this case the sale of the collateral shares would not have fetched enough money to pay back the loan. If you get credit by a stock broker collateral shares have to be worth a good deal more than your credit and this normally enables the broker to sell enough shares before the collateral shares are worth less than the credit. I think this is a different type of situation.
icon url

RealDutch

10/04/17 9:15 AM

#120492 RE: Trip-Fontaine #120488

As I said 100 times before: my obvious guess is that when the share price hits a certain level the lenders are entitled to sell the collateral shares



I think that's a fair assumption. Those shares are gone. Poof... And the company doesn't feel like disclosing the details of the loan. Which only applies to loan 1+2 apparently, and not the trading facility because it is revolving.

So, that's close to 3M shares that are gone.
I think the worst should be behind us though. Unless we get the lawsuits or another surprise from the company.
icon url

The Swede

10/04/17 1:05 PM

#120512 RE: Trip-Fontaine #120488

That is impossible, because then it's not collateral any more. You could see in the Q2 filing that all shares was still collateral. Solomon confirmed in my phone call that there is not threshold in the share price when SIAF no longer has the right to buy the shares back.