What are the scenarios if mining company around 4c decides to halt stock trading due to capital raising?
"It appears that the company in question is raising money to invest in expanding its operations (specifically lithium production but that is off topic for here). The stock price was rising on the back of (perceived) increases in demand for the company's products but in order to fulfil demand they need to either invest in higher production or increase prices. They chose to increase production by investing. To invest they needed to raise capital and so are going through the motions to do that. The key question as to what will happen with their stock price after this is broken down into two parts: short term and long term: In the short term the price is driven by the expectation of future profits (see below) and the behavioural expectations from an increase in interest in the stock caused by the fact that it is in the news. People who had never heard of the stock or thought of investing in the company have suddenly discovered it and been told that it is doing well and so ""want a piece of it"". This will exacerbate the effect of the news (broadly positive or negative) and will drive the price in the short run. The effect of extra leverage (assuming that they raise capital by writing bonds) also immediately increases the total value of the company so will increase the price somewhat. The short term price changes usually pare back after a few months as the shine goes off and people take profits. For investing in the long run you need to consider how the increase in capital will be used and how demand and supply will change. Since the company is using the money to invest in factors of production (i.e. making more product) it is the return on capital (or investment) employed (ROCE) that will inform the fundamentals underlying the stock price. The higher the ROCE, the more valuable the capital raised is in the future and the more profits and the company as a whole will grow. A questing to ask yourself is whether they can employ the extra capital at the same ROCE as they currently produce. It is possible that by investing in new, more productive equipment they can raise their ROCE but also possible that, because the lithium mines (or whatever) can only get so big and can only get so much access to the seams extra capital will not be as productive as existing capital so ROCE will fall for the new capital."
I'm going to guess that you found this because of a stock screener.  This company went through a 1:20 reverse split on June 30, so every 20 shares outstanding became a single share.  Where before you had 20 shares worth $100 you now have 1 share worth $100, the value of the company doesn't change because of a split.  This company was never trading for $30+ per share.  Reverse splits are typical of a floundering company trading on an exchange that has a minimum share price requirement.  While reverse splits don't change the value of the company, just the number of shares outstanding and the price per share, no healthy company performs a reverse split.  Reverse splits are generally a massive signal to jump ship... The company seems to be trading for $1 right now, why the value fell from a pre-split $1.65 ($33/20) to $1 is anyone's guess; how the company ever got to $1.65 is also anyone's guess. But looking at the most recent 10-Q there are numerous causes for concern:  Note 2. Capital Stock On March 6, 2017, the Company issued as compensation for services provided a total of 650,000 common shares with a fair value of $390,000 to a third party. The fair value of the shares was based on the price quoted on the OTC pink sheets on the grant date. this indicates a share price of $0.60 ($390,000/650,000) as of 3/6/2017, just to reinforce that the google price chart doesn't show the true past but a past adjusted for the split Results of Operations The three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016 For the three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016, total revenues were $0 and $0, respectively, and net losses from operations were $414,663 and $26,260, respectively. The net losses were attributable to costs attributable to operating as a public company, in particular, common stock with a valuation of $390,000 that was issued to an investor relations firm in the first quarter of 2017. Going Concern As of March 31, 2017, there is substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern as we have not generated sufficient cash flow to fund our proposed business. We have suffered recurring losses from operations since our inception. In addition, we have yet to generate an internal cash flow from our business operations or successfully raised the financing required to develop our proposed business. As a result of these and other factors, our independent auditor has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.    Liquidity and Capital Resources We had no cash as of the date of March 31, 2017. Additionally, since there is no balance sheet in the last 10-Q (another bad sign), the last annual report 10-K has this balance sheet: So the company: So why did the stock value plummet? It's anyones' guess but there is no shortage of ways to justify it.   In fact, it's reasonable to ask how is this company still worth $3mm ($1 * 3mm shares outstanding)... "In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences.  This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life.  For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a  good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying ""dividend paying""/""growth stock"" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies ""long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business"". Likewise ""growth stocks"" [/ non-dividend paying] implies ""new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk"". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case.  Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance." "Some history: In the US, this is very tightly controlled and regulated. Although stock market securities insider trading is a relatively new crime around the world (20-30 year old), the United States  is exceptional for offering the longest sentences for it, although it is still far more lucrative than and carries lower sentences than something like petty larceny. The perception of illegal insider trading has changed in the US over the years, although it is based on much older fraud statutes the regulators and the courts have only really developed modern case law against insider trading in the past 20-30 years. The US relies on its vast network of registered broker-dealers to detect and report abnormal trading activity and the regulator (SEC) can quickly obtain emergency court orders from rent-a-judges (Administrative Law Judges) to freeze trader's assets to prevent them from withdrawing, or quickly enacting sanctions. So this reality helps deter trading on material inside information. So for someone that needs to get an information advantage on the market, it is [simply] necessary for them to rationalize how this information could be inferred from public sources.  Similarly there is a thin line between non-public information and public information, the ""lab experiment"" example would be material insider information, but the fact that there will be litigation over a company's key patents may be ""public"" as soon as the lawyer submits the complaint to the court system. It is also worth noting that there are A LOT of financial products trading in the capital markets, and illegal insider trading laws only applies to trading of shares of a company. So if a major holder in gold is about to liquidate all their holdings, being short gold futures is not subject to civil and criminal sanctions. Hope this helps. The above examples should help you understand what kind of information is material inside information and what kind is not, and how it is relevant to trading decisions." You should be worried. You have made the mistake of entering an investment on the recommendation of family/friend. The last think you should do is make another mistake of just leaving it and hoping it will go up again. Your stock has dropped 37.6% from its high of $74.50. That means it has to go up over 60% just to reach the high of $74.50. You are correct this may never happen or if it does it could take a long, long time to get up to its previous highs. What is the company doing to turn its fortunes around? Take a look at some other examples: QAN.AX - Qantas Airways  This stock reached a high of around $6 in late 2007 after a nice uptrend over a year and a half, it then dropped drastically at the start of the GFC, and has since kept falling and is now priced at just $1.15. QAN reported its first ever loss earlier this year, but its problems were evident much earlier. AAPL - Apple Inc.  AAPL reach a high of just over $700 in September 2013, then dropped to around $400 and has recovered a bit to about $525 (still 25% below its highs) and looks to be at the start of another downtrend. How long will it take AAPL to get back to $700, more than 33% from its current price? TEN.AX - Ten Network Holdings Limited  TEN reached a high of $4.26 in late 2004 after a nice uptrend during 2004. It then started a steep journey downwards and is still going down. It is now priced at just $0.25, a whopping 94% below its high. It will have to increase by 1600% just to reach its high of $4.26 (which I think will never happen). Can a stock come back from a drastic downtrend? Yes it can. It doesn't always happen, but a company can turn around and can reach and even surpass it previous highs. The question is how and when will this happen? How long will you keep your capital tied up in a stock that is going nowhere and has every chance of going further down? The most important thing with any investment is to protect your current capital. If you lose all your capital you cannot make any new investments until you build up more capital. That is why it is so important to have a risk management strategy and decide what is your get out point if things go against you before you get into any new investment. Have a stop loss. I would get out of your investment before you lose more capital. If you had set a stop loss at 20% off the stock's last highs, you would have gotten out at about $59.60, 28% higher than the current share price of $46.50. If you do further analysis on this company and find that it is improving its prospects and the stock price breaks up through its current ranging band, then you can always buy back in. However, do you still want to be in the stock if it breaks the range band on the downside? In this case who knows how low it can continue to go. N.B. This is my opinion, as others would have theirs, and what I would do in your current situation with this stock. There's a case to be made that companies below a certain market cap have more potential than the higher ones.  Consider, Apple cannot grow 100 fold from its current value. At $700B or so in value, that would be a $70T goal, just about the value of all the combined wealth in the entire US. At some point, the laws of large numbers take over, and exponential growth starts to flatten out.  On the flip side, Apple may have as good or better chance to rise 10% over the next 6-12 months as a random small cap stock. Value is the key word here. Traders should ideally trade on the perceived future value of a company.  Changes in the perceived future value is what leads them to buy and sell shares. That said, if a company were to have some catastrophe happen (say it and all of its employees and property disappeared)  and somehow every shareholder agreed to not sell, the companies market capitalization would remain unmoved even though the value of the company is gone. So theoretically yes, but it is unlikely. yeah but most likely, it's a 1x liquidation preference. The startup isn't going to generate cash flows enough to pay off the initial investment to the investor. Technically it isn't exactly specified as only triggered on a liquidation event because OP didn't specify the real legal language but it seems likely that's the case. Point 2 is exactly what a liquidation preference is. No way the owner of the company is participating in anything until the investor gets his initial investment back. In practical terms, it shouldn't.  Market cap changes every day (assuming public trading, of course) or even second-by-second, and focusing on investor sentiment toward your company's stock is not the wisest way to make strategic decisions. That being said, company execs do need to be mindful of unusual swings in their company's share prices because it can sometimes be an indicator of news/information of which they're unaware.  At the same time, you can't just disregard your shareholders, especially the big institutional players who may have large voting blocks with which to replace you if they feel you're not responsive to events.  They are the ones who make strategic decisions based on your company's share price, right? (grin) The issue around swings in market cap is more about public perception than reality, so it is important for companies to have a good public relations strategy ready to go that can address questions/concerns in case of some market event.  After all, consumers who hear that a company's share price has suddenly fallen by, say, 30% might be more hesitant to do business with that company because there's a (perhaps irrational) fear the company's not doing well and may not be around much longer. Investors are, by their very nature, emotional rather than rational.  Any kind of news can cause a stampede toward or away from a stock for no reason that an investment professional could ever explain.  That's why it's impossible to spend any real time focusing on market cap (leave that to your P.R. department to worry about). IF, as a company executive, you focus on doing the right things to make your company successful then any questions/concerns about market cap will resolve themselves. Good luck!