Surely it's only baggies holding on from here?

Thank you @MrMotion for your reply.

As a I learn to overcome my own weaknesses (thanks to strawman) as an investor I see one thing - I am a fallible human and I have much to learn.

The sunken cost fallacy is the general tendency for people to continue an endeavor, or continue consuming or pursuing an option, if they’ve invested time or money or some resource in it even if they are worse off.

All of these things are irrational, in the sense that you should realise the money is gone. But I do think people do these things because they want to convince themselves that they’ve managed to recapture the loss.

In economics, a sunk cost is any past cost that has already been paid and cannot be recovered.

In the end you can't change the past so all that matters is the future and what does the future look like for the business?

So you have two choices:

1. Decide that you can get a better return by selling and investing the remaining capital in a different business
2. Decide that the bad news is already baked in and the future risk adjusted returns of the business will be good enough to justify owning the business

Sunk cost fallacy and price anchoring are real cognitivie bias's and if you're hanging on for those reasons then you need to catch yourself. However if, looking at the future of a business, you think it offers acceptale risk adjusted returns then holding on is perfectly fine.

Raising capital when the share price is down here is a two finger salute to shareholders.

I am down a similar amount and it's at the point now where it's worth so little there seems no point in selling.

The question really is, will they keep going as an ongoing concern or are they in a position of running out of cash or needing to do something drastic like a debt for equity swap?