Thank you for the helpful response.
I’ve been looking at the Securities Purchase Agreement and the Distribution Agreement. Pasaca pays $12 million to QMC (QMC already owes Pasaca $3 million) in two phases triggered by two closing dates: the first closing closing occurs when QCM has completed a product that integrates with Innova’s products, triggering a $1.5 million payment, and the second closing date occurs when when QMC files amended articles of incorporation, triggering a $10.5 million payment.
So, QMC gets $15 million and, in exchange, Pasaca becomes sales/distribution agent for HealthID and QMC’s quantum dots and obtains 51% of QMC’s common stock and a majority of its board seats. QMC gets an additional $15 million in guaranteed royalties/revenues covering a 12 month period that, in the case of lagging revenues, can be extended by Pasaca for additional 6 month periods if they pay a little more. When the deal is fully implemented, QMC has not taken on any debt (in fact it will have gotten rid of its debt obligation under the bridge loan agreement), and though it sacrifices are majority interest in the company, it gains a majority shareholder capable of monetizing its products and capable of providing additional funding in the future as excess art for growth. I would imagine Squires has an employment agreement laden with disincentives to terminating him or overriding his judgment, so, how much actual control will accompany Pasaca’s majority ownership interest is probably a little complicated, which I think is a good thing.
When it comes to details about how QMC will monetized, the agreements aren’t too specific, but they aren’t impossibly vague, either. Nothing in the Securities Purchase Agreement or Distribution Agreement states specifically what the source for QMC’s revenue will be other than that it will be royalties or other sales proceeds from “joint sales” strategies by which purchasers of Innova products will be “pulling through” the sale of HealthID as an adjunct to Innova product sales. Details are obviously firmed up in undisclosed agreements.
I have no problem believing that Pasaca’s sales efforts will generate money for QMC and value for QTMM shareholders, even if I cant specifically quantify how much or identify exactly who will be the paying customer. Like you point out, Puravida, the agreements contemplate a bundling of the Innova test with the HealthID product, and Pasaca, as the recipient of 51% of QMC’s profits, on top of whatever sales fees they might receive, will be motivated to push HealthID. The more exposure and credibility they give to HealthID, the greater the credibility for their entire testing platform. And the more money for them and for us.
So, I think I’m satisfied at this stage that there will be monetization; and, given the current share prices, I think whatever risk might attend the lack of further detailed information is not unreasonable. Whether a $2.50 or $5 share price will be justified is something we shall see soon enough, even if we aren’t privy to the details of how that is calculated.
1.5 billion pennies a month is $15 million. There will be 750 million shares issued and outstanding when the Pasaca deal is fully implemented. That will be 25 cents per share gross revenues annually. So, let’s hope for a little better. I don’t think Pasaca would be in on this deal if they didn’t expect significantly better.
If I didn’t already own shares, I would buy shares based on this information. Plus, success of HealthID in the shorter term guarantees that QTMM will be around in the longer term, conducting business. I think that in itself has considerable value, even if those products have not yet been developed.
Soon I may start accusing skeptics and doubters of being trolls
I’ve been looking at the Securities Purchase Agreement and the Distribution Agreement. Pasaca pays $12 million to QMC (QMC already owes Pasaca $3 million) in two phases triggered by two closing dates: the first closing closing occurs when QCM has completed a product that integrates with Innova’s products, triggering a $1.5 million payment, and the second closing date occurs when when QMC files amended articles of incorporation, triggering a $10.5 million payment.
So, QMC gets $15 million and, in exchange, Pasaca becomes sales/distribution agent for HealthID and QMC’s quantum dots and obtains 51% of QMC’s common stock and a majority of its board seats. QMC gets an additional $15 million in guaranteed royalties/revenues covering a 12 month period that, in the case of lagging revenues, can be extended by Pasaca for additional 6 month periods if they pay a little more. When the deal is fully implemented, QMC has not taken on any debt (in fact it will have gotten rid of its debt obligation under the bridge loan agreement), and though it sacrifices are majority interest in the company, it gains a majority shareholder capable of monetizing its products and capable of providing additional funding in the future as excess art for growth. I would imagine Squires has an employment agreement laden with disincentives to terminating him or overriding his judgment, so, how much actual control will accompany Pasaca’s majority ownership interest is probably a little complicated, which I think is a good thing.
When it comes to details about how QMC will monetized, the agreements aren’t too specific, but they aren’t impossibly vague, either. Nothing in the Securities Purchase Agreement or Distribution Agreement states specifically what the source for QMC’s revenue will be other than that it will be royalties or other sales proceeds from “joint sales” strategies by which purchasers of Innova products will be “pulling through” the sale of HealthID as an adjunct to Innova product sales. Details are obviously firmed up in undisclosed agreements.
I have no problem believing that Pasaca’s sales efforts will generate money for QMC and value for QTMM shareholders, even if I cant specifically quantify how much or identify exactly who will be the paying customer. Like you point out, Puravida, the agreements contemplate a bundling of the Innova test with the HealthID product, and Pasaca, as the recipient of 51% of QMC’s profits, on top of whatever sales fees they might receive, will be motivated to push HealthID. The more exposure and credibility they give to HealthID, the greater the credibility for their entire testing platform. And the more money for them and for us.
So, I think I’m satisfied at this stage that there will be monetization; and, given the current share prices, I think whatever risk might attend the lack of further detailed information is not unreasonable. Whether a $2.50 or $5 share price will be justified is something we shall see soon enough, even if we aren’t privy to the details of how that is calculated.
1.5 billion pennies a month is $15 million. There will be 750 million shares issued and outstanding when the Pasaca deal is fully implemented. That will be 25 cents per share gross revenues annually. So, let’s hope for a little better. I don’t think Pasaca would be in on this deal if they didn’t expect significantly better.
If I didn’t already own shares, I would buy shares based on this information. Plus, success of HealthID in the shorter term guarantees that QTMM will be around in the longer term, conducting business. I think that in itself has considerable value, even if those products have not yet been developed.
Soon I may start accusing skeptics and doubters of being trolls
2
