I understand that your post gives an incorrect understanding of what a reverse split is. That's the dynamic.
Wrong. A reverse split does not change the value of anyone's position or its potential return, only the number of shares.
8K makes it clear that AHMSA's purchase price is not based on the reverse split. The 8K also makes clear that AHMSA's equity investment, once completed in 2018, will result in 65% ownership by AHMSA, so that's a little less than 3x the current share count, not 13x the current share count (which would have given AHMSA 93% ownership).
Right, thanks, Grupo Acerero del Norte was the vehicle by which Alonso Ancira bought AHMSA in 1991. The magazine Vanguardia estimated back in 2006 that his personal fortune exceeded $700M. Not Carlos Slim by any means, but no slouch, either. Takes ownership of a big-time company to amass personal wealth of that magnitude.
And I don't think a large Mexican company like AHMSA/Minera del Norte, which employs 19,000 people and whose CEO enjoys a personal friendship with the president of Mexico, would have agreed to this deal unless its management felt very confident indeed that all necessary approvals would be obtained.
Ferguson cites medical schools and journals as exceptions to his conflict-of-interest claims, which focus on the fields of economics, business, law, and political science. Since VGX-3100 results will appear in a science journal, not a journal in the fields he is addressing, his analysis is not pertinent here. If you can find a credible source arguing for corruption among reputable, top-shelf science journals, that would be pertinent.
I would wager plenty that the journal will not have close ties to UPenn. You need to understand that unlike the world of regular publishing, the point of academic publishing is not primarily to sell copies of the journal (if that were true the field would be a miserable failure). The point is prestige. Publishing an article in your university's home journal (or a journal with close ties to it) does not add any prestige to the author--at best the effect is neutral, and depending on the situation, it might look pathetic. The journal would much rather publish an internationally significant article by an academic outside any ties it might have to a particular university. Also, there is practically zero incentive for an academic journal to publish an article that will be some kind of instant sales blockbuster. Academic journals do not usually sell on newsstands, but by subscription to libraries and individual academics, so unlike with Rolling Stone, it doesn't much matter what article a journal features on its cover--the sales will be basically the same regardless. And again, the sales don't matter much--publishers of journals seek prestige, not money.
fdapproval, I appreciate your enthusiasm for Inovio, but there is no big money to be made in the world of peer-reviewed academic journals (hardly any money to be made at all, actually), and thus very little incentive that would lead to a scenario comparable to the one described in Inside Job. I'm an academic in the humanities rather than the sciences, but the peer-review process is very similar. Peer-reviewed journals are ranked by impact factor, not market cap, and any profit is indirect: academics who publish articles in journals with high impact factors increase the likelihood of their landing jobs at top universities and gaining tenure, but the journal pays them nothing monetarily, nor does it pay the reviewers. I think you should defer to lurkingprof's expertise on this topic--his command of it is obvious to anyone halfway familiar with the world of academic journals.
Even if there weren't the bureaucratic hold up til then, can't say I blame them with current pricing being what it is. Likely to be substantially better in July. Still haven't been able to get any .01 shares, but the next couple of months may help me out with that...
Presentation is excellent, agreed. Just a matter of time before the market catches up to how well positioned Sundance is to succeed, even in a low-price environment. When higher prices return, in two months or two years or whenever, then things will really get fun.
AMSC makes degaussing cables, which require cryogenic cooling as part of their naval function (to help ships avoid triggering magnetic mines). Study suggests that using gaseous helium as a cryogen could provide benefits that would make it preferable to currently used cryogens. Such benefits could make degaussing systems (and thus AMSC cables that can be used in those systems) more attractive to prospective naval buyers.
Thanks for the notice, good news! You're probably right about the price--hopefully we're only a couple months away from seeing the $60s and $70s again.
Glad to see it! Should be only the beginning--I expect the next six months to be a fun ride as US production and WTI head in opposite directions, though the macro (oil and otherwise) can always surprise unpleasantly.
Yup, and US pps should reach .47 next session to match it, given current AUD-USD rate of .78. SDCJF and SEA don't always match perfectly to the exchange rate, especially given smaller-volume trading for SDCJF, but usually very close to it.
At .47 we'd have a 42% rally from the bottom at .33, and with rig counts going down and wells not being fracked, that rally will only continue.
The bottom was .33 and the stock is now sitting at .42 (should be .45 to match ASX pps of .575 in terms of USD-AUD exchange rate). That's a 27% rally. Of course, I bought shares at .38, not .33, but that's my bad. Anyway I'm not worried--Sundance balance sheet is excellent and company is going to do very well when oil recovers.
No, the Aussies don't know anything we don't. All you have to do is read hotcopper to see that.