The Myth Of Junior Miners' Tight Share Structure

by: Joshua Hall
Summary

I frequently hear North American investors mention that a junior miner has a "tight share structure" as if this is a certain quality to be desired in a junior.

The concept of a tight share structure being an advantage is a myth that makes no sense.

Investors should focus on market capitalization because the higher it is, the less dilution there will be from an equity raise.

The number of shares outstanding is simply a mathematical function that should not be a factor when it comes to assessing the merits of a company.

The "Tight Share Structure" Concept

In various media outlets, I frequently hear North American investors mention that a junior miner has a "tight share structure" as if this is a certain quality to be desired in a junior miner. By this, they mean that a company has a limited number of shares outstanding (e.g., less than 100 million). Many of these commentators will also poke fun at Australian juniors for having 1 billion or 2 billion shares outstanding. This "tight share structure" concept even makes it into investor presentations such as the following slide extract from Constantine Metal Resources (OTCQB:CNSNF):

Setting aside the constituents of the shareholder base - it is preferable to have committed institutional shareholders - the concept of a tight share structure being an advantage is a myth that makes no sense. What does matter is the market capitalization of a junior. The larger the market capitalization, the easier it generally is to raise equity while minimizing shareholder dilution.

Let us look at some examples that make this clear. First, allow me to lay out the parameters for our example. The following table compares a hypothetical Canadian Junior (blue text) with 50 million shares outstanding trading for $1.00 per share to an Australian Junior (green text) with 1 billion shares outstanding trading for $.05 per share. It assumes I bought $50,000 of each which would give me 50,000 shares of the Canadian junior and 1,000,000 shares of the Australian junior [rows 2 and 6]. The market capitalization of both stocks is $50 million. My $50,000 purchase of each gives me .10% ownership of each company.

Myth of Tight Share Structure Examples

Now, let us assume that each company raises $5 million by issuing equity which dilutes its shares outstanding. Assuming the stock prices remain constant for both and I do not participate in the equity raises, the Canadian junior's shares outstanding would increase to 55 million and my ownership would fall from .10% to .091% [row 3]. The Australian juniors shares outstanding would increase to 1.1 billion and my ownership would fall from .10% to .091% [row 7]. In both cases, regardless of the number of shares outstanding, my ownership percentage remains the same.

Now, let us assume that each company then raises $50 million by issuing even more equity which further dilutes shares outstanding. Assuming the stock prices remain constant for both and I do not participate in the equity raises, the Canadian junior's shares outstanding would increase to 105 million and my ownership would fall from .091% to .048% [row 4]. The Australian juniors shares outstanding would increase to 2.1 billion and my ownership would fall from .091% to .048% [row 8]. Again, in both cases, regardless of the number of shares outstanding, my ownership percentage remains the same.

Rows 9-16 simply provide an additional example where the stock price falls considerably prior to the $5 million equity raise. Again, in both cases, regardless of the number of shares outstanding, my ownership percentage remains the same.

In all these examples, you can see that my level of ownership of each company remains the same when the market capitalization of each company is the same regardless of the number of shares outstanding for each company. This is the bottom line.

Focus on Market Capitalization

Hopefully, this example makes it clear that a tight share structure is really meaningless and what we need to focus on when it comes to dilution concerns is market capitalization. The higher the market capitalization of a company, the easier it is for them to raise equity capital while minimizing shareholder dilution. Market capitalization is a function of the things we need to focus on, such as (1) deposit quality, (2) fundamentals of associated metals, (3) management strength, and (4) institutional shareholder support. The number of shares outstanding is simply a mathematical function that should not be a factor when it comes to assessing the merits of a company.

Finally, I took the time to write this up and present an example because I am tired of this myth and I do not want to see investors avoid attractive Australian juniors with high numbers of shares outstanding because of it.

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Additional disclosure: I'm an investment advisor and owner of True Vine Investments, a Registered Investment Advisor in the State of Pennsylvania (U.S.A.). I screen electronic communications from prospective clients in other states to ensure that I do not communicate directly with any prospect in another state where I have not met the registration requirements or do not have an applicable exemption.

Any investment advice or recommendations involving securities referenced in this article is general in nature and geared towards a readership of sophisticated investors. This article does not involve an attempt to effect transactions in a specific security nor constitute specific investment advice to any particular individual. It does not take into account the specific financial situation, investment objectives, or particular needs of any specific person who may read this article. Individual investors are encouraged to independently evaluate specific investments and consult a licensed professional before making any investment decisions.

All data presented by the author is regarded as factual; however, its accuracy is not guaranteed. Investors are encouraged to conduct their own comprehensive analysis.

Positive comments made regarding this article should not be construed by readers to be an endorsement of my abilities to act as an investment advisor.