I have 25k invested in FITX and if I had more fund
Post# of 56324
Posted On: 03/23/2014 12:39:19 AM
Re: Westcoastbio #8060
I have 25k invested in FITX and if I had more funds available I certainly would not hesitate to buy more shares of FITX. I don't want anyone to misunderstand here. I fully understand the risk and fear is not the basis of understanding restricted shares particularly when there are such a large quantity involved. If it was 200 or 300 million shares they could be absorbed without to much difficulty based on the volume.
My point is that equity investors/lenders/etc. turn their money over as often as possible. So if you consider the amount of hard capital actually invested to date (unknown) and it's value based upon current pps. Lets say you use .10 pps for 1,424,905,831 shares originally issued at .001 you then have a current cash value of $142,490,583 So is the amount of restricted shares important, Yes when you consider that total cost for cash acquisitions, infrastructure, construction, travel, etc to date should line up comparatively for similar start-ups on a typical risk versus reward basis. You can also work this in reverse to determine what a typical share structure might be. That is, take all historic capital expenditures as well as projected ( let's say 12 - 24 months), add in risk/return and determine restricted share structure based on .001
So this brings up a couple of questions.
For so many restricted shares being issued, why does Bill have to secure additional funding? Should there have been sufficient capital for construction build out/G&A, etc., for the present approximate market Value of $142+ million held by 6 insider groups? I use the 6 insider/groups because they appear to be involved as investors.
Note that this only includes insider restricted shares issued on or after 4/1/13 and specifically excludes shares previously issued that were restricted then became unrestricted and were sold recently by insiders
So why is this important.
Big investors will look closely at the share structure and see the structure as being designed to make a few parties (6 in this case) able to take $142+ million out of the market for a startup company that still requires additional 20 million to finance construction.
Given the above, I don't see market hype/licensing or April 1 changes to Canada law (MJ) being able to convince big money to invest until significant revenue generation occurs. That's why I believe share structure is critical here and needs to be honestly addressed. Glossing over it with optimism may work out in the end but at the same time I have real money invested (as we all do) so I think we deserve real answers here.
I don't mean to hurt any feelings here but this is a serious issue that we can all benefit if we ask questions and get them answered. There are lot's of smart guys/gals here and I welcome your feedback. Please be polite
BTW, I used to do this for a living and have financed tens of millions of dollars in debt and equity. It's been awhile so things have changed but the fundamentals remain the same.
My point is that equity investors/lenders/etc. turn their money over as often as possible. So if you consider the amount of hard capital actually invested to date (unknown) and it's value based upon current pps. Lets say you use .10 pps for 1,424,905,831 shares originally issued at .001 you then have a current cash value of $142,490,583 So is the amount of restricted shares important, Yes when you consider that total cost for cash acquisitions, infrastructure, construction, travel, etc to date should line up comparatively for similar start-ups on a typical risk versus reward basis. You can also work this in reverse to determine what a typical share structure might be. That is, take all historic capital expenditures as well as projected ( let's say 12 - 24 months), add in risk/return and determine restricted share structure based on .001
So this brings up a couple of questions.
For so many restricted shares being issued, why does Bill have to secure additional funding? Should there have been sufficient capital for construction build out/G&A, etc., for the present approximate market Value of $142+ million held by 6 insider groups? I use the 6 insider/groups because they appear to be involved as investors.
Note that this only includes insider restricted shares issued on or after 4/1/13 and specifically excludes shares previously issued that were restricted then became unrestricted and were sold recently by insiders
So why is this important.
Big investors will look closely at the share structure and see the structure as being designed to make a few parties (6 in this case) able to take $142+ million out of the market for a startup company that still requires additional 20 million to finance construction.
Given the above, I don't see market hype/licensing or April 1 changes to Canada law (MJ) being able to convince big money to invest until significant revenue generation occurs. That's why I believe share structure is critical here and needs to be honestly addressed. Glossing over it with optimism may work out in the end but at the same time I have real money invested (as we all do) so I think we deserve real answers here.
I don't mean to hurt any feelings here but this is a serious issue that we can all benefit if we ask questions and get them answered. There are lot's of smart guys/gals here and I welcome your feedback. Please be polite
BTW, I used to do this for a living and have financed tens of millions of dollars in debt and equity. It's been awhile so things have changed but the fundamentals remain the same.
(0)
(0)