Petersen pretends not to understand "Dilutive Financing" and promises "there isn't a chance"
on this message board, by jlp_law2003 . Aug 25, 2009 8:25 AM....
"Your description of value dilution assumes that a company with earnings will sell new shares and then find itself with no profitable use for the new funds. That almost never happens. In the normal case, the new funds will be put to work with the same efficiency as the old capital, earnings will grow and the dividend rights attributable to each share (old and new) will also grow. It only works the way you described if the new funds are wasted on something that never generates additional income.
The ONLY time percentage of ownership means anything is when you have and want to maintain 50% or more ownership of a company. Otherwise it's a meaningless concept that folks like the bashers trot out to engender fear.
Existing stockholders almost always win when a company brings in equity at a reasonable price. The only cases I can think of where existing stockholders lost out to new financing are the bank bailouts where management drove the banks into the dirt with bad decisions and there wasn't much left for the old stockholders once the necessary recapitalization was done. There isn't a chance that will happen in Axion's case."
Another example of liar in chief Johnny saying "There isn't a chance that (dilution) will happen in Axion's case."
He once again ignores the common concept of shareholder dilution, which nearly every developmental stage company goes through. Axion themselves actually disclose the risk of dilutive financing in their own SEC filings. Johnny utilizes some classic sleazy lawyer speak to make his case by falsely steering his argument to one of purely earnings dilution, yet we are speaking of a company with no earnings, so this is a ludicrous tactic. For independent verification look up "dilutive financing", you will never find Johnny's convoluted twist in the business world.
It is nice to have you back Mr. Petersen, revisiting your roots I see. Yes sometimes when dealing with a difficult personal issue it is easier to refer to oneself in the third person, however, Switzerland is not a state.