Hello kbad Thank you for your response. I appre
Post# of 56324
Posted On: 06/14/2014 2:56:51 PM
Hello kbad
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your input.
I agree that making it appear the HC needed FITX was not the best move, IMO making so much noise about being the worlds largest mmj facility was sure to bring more public scrutiny and subsequent focus by council members due to the scale of intended operations. Once the license has been issued you can not put the genie back in the bottle so I think the process may have slowed down as a result.
If the license was already issued it would be posted by HC on their website or be otherwise available information through other sources,. i.e. minutes, etc.
I also agree with you on the dividends issue and do not think it would be a good idea, that said, it sort of fits the modus operandi in that big dreamers have a tendency to use "bait" to attract "fish" (investors). In this case, the bait may be dividends. My logic is that share structure after licensing will continue to negatively impact price action/PPS and to attract investors dividends may be offered. If so, I do not believe dividends would actually amount to any significant value to shareholders because a revenue sharing agreement could negate earnings/dividends
while recycling money back into the business (growth). If dividends were offered it would IMO, be relatively short term, say 3 years or less and only prior to any uplisting occurring. Also, after licensing, there will be revenue expectations which are unknown but will be measured against publicly stated production (expectation) versus actual market share. When I stated above, modus operandi, look at the financials, revenues included moneys received/advanced against a revenue share agreement. Is this actually considered revenue? Could this possibly be monies generated from insiders selling shares into the market as they became unrestricted? I understand the motivation, anyway, right or wrong, I think you get my point here.
I also think the revenue potential for the hemp side of the equation far exceeds the revenues potential of medicinal marijuana and while this is long term the industrial use of hemp will have a far greater impact on the company revenues.
Last but not least, I think that .06 is starting to emerge as a baseline PPS and that logical extrapolation can be used with the fibonacci sequence to establish PPS after license is issued. More on that later........
I very much appreciate your business knowledge and would appreciate your views in response to this post. I also absolutely agree that dividends is not the way to go and may not ever be offered. If offered I think it is only a strategic move that will not amount to much shareholder value for the reasons already provided.
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your input.
I agree that making it appear the HC needed FITX was not the best move, IMO making so much noise about being the worlds largest mmj facility was sure to bring more public scrutiny and subsequent focus by council members due to the scale of intended operations. Once the license has been issued you can not put the genie back in the bottle so I think the process may have slowed down as a result.
If the license was already issued it would be posted by HC on their website or be otherwise available information through other sources,. i.e. minutes, etc.
I also agree with you on the dividends issue and do not think it would be a good idea, that said, it sort of fits the modus operandi in that big dreamers have a tendency to use "bait" to attract "fish" (investors). In this case, the bait may be dividends. My logic is that share structure after licensing will continue to negatively impact price action/PPS and to attract investors dividends may be offered. If so, I do not believe dividends would actually amount to any significant value to shareholders because a revenue sharing agreement could negate earnings/dividends
while recycling money back into the business (growth). If dividends were offered it would IMO, be relatively short term, say 3 years or less and only prior to any uplisting occurring. Also, after licensing, there will be revenue expectations which are unknown but will be measured against publicly stated production (expectation) versus actual market share. When I stated above, modus operandi, look at the financials, revenues included moneys received/advanced against a revenue share agreement. Is this actually considered revenue? Could this possibly be monies generated from insiders selling shares into the market as they became unrestricted? I understand the motivation, anyway, right or wrong, I think you get my point here.
I also think the revenue potential for the hemp side of the equation far exceeds the revenues potential of medicinal marijuana and while this is long term the industrial use of hemp will have a far greater impact on the company revenues.
Last but not least, I think that .06 is starting to emerge as a baseline PPS and that logical extrapolation can be used with the fibonacci sequence to establish PPS after license is issued. More on that later........
I very much appreciate your business knowledge and would appreciate your views in response to this post. I also absolutely agree that dividends is not the way to go and may not ever be offered. If offered I think it is only a strategic move that will not amount to much shareholder value for the reasons already provided.
(0)
(0)