Ted. I won’t devote a lot of time to this, bu
Post# of 20918
(Total Views: 269)
Posted On: 09/11/2021 6:31:16 PM
Re: critical cat #20885
Ted.
I won’t devote a lot of time to this, but a rejoinder of some kind is called for. It is obvious you are a sharper than the average bear when it comes to understanding, conveying and interpreting corporate numbers and reports. I and I bet everyone appreciate your copious efforts to enlighten and inform the rest of us. But not this time. Your numbers are one thing. They may be accurate. I don’t know. But that is not the point. Your arithmetic does not support in any way the conclusion where you state:
...my conclusion is that Pasaca will not complete the deal and end up owning 51% of QMC.
One thing it can do is prompt unwarranted suggestions such as deliberate ruse or devious mind (Critical Cat) or lie (DJ).
It is laughable to think that Steve would go to all this effort — via Press Release, Proxy, accountants, attorneys, etc, and to document in writing in declarative statements to shareholders his plans for partnership with Pasaca and everything dependent upon it — if he did not intend to follow through. He is going to do all this and then come back to say, sorry folks, only kidding. Please ignore the deception. Come on. The suggestion let alone conclusion goes beyond anything supported by arithmetic.
Assuming for a moment it turns out your math is more accurate than math by Steve, his accountants, attorneys, etc., and there really is a shortfall in the amount needed to consummate the partnership, it is more than a rounding error but certainly not a showstopper. I can think of any number of ways to make up the difference short of abrogating the agreement with Pasaca. But at this point all your math amounts to is a hypothetical discrepancy found through the due diligence of one well intentioned shareholder waiting to be confirmed, denied or ignored as the process Steve has put in motion unfolds.
Whether your numbers are accurate or off, it is nice to get them.
I won’t devote a lot of time to this, but a rejoinder of some kind is called for. It is obvious you are a sharper than the average bear when it comes to understanding, conveying and interpreting corporate numbers and reports. I and I bet everyone appreciate your copious efforts to enlighten and inform the rest of us. But not this time. Your numbers are one thing. They may be accurate. I don’t know. But that is not the point. Your arithmetic does not support in any way the conclusion where you state:
...my conclusion is that Pasaca will not complete the deal and end up owning 51% of QMC.
One thing it can do is prompt unwarranted suggestions such as deliberate ruse or devious mind (Critical Cat) or lie (DJ).
It is laughable to think that Steve would go to all this effort — via Press Release, Proxy, accountants, attorneys, etc, and to document in writing in declarative statements to shareholders his plans for partnership with Pasaca and everything dependent upon it — if he did not intend to follow through. He is going to do all this and then come back to say, sorry folks, only kidding. Please ignore the deception. Come on. The suggestion let alone conclusion goes beyond anything supported by arithmetic.
Assuming for a moment it turns out your math is more accurate than math by Steve, his accountants, attorneys, etc., and there really is a shortfall in the amount needed to consummate the partnership, it is more than a rounding error but certainly not a showstopper. I can think of any number of ways to make up the difference short of abrogating the agreement with Pasaca. But at this point all your math amounts to is a hypothetical discrepancy found through the due diligence of one well intentioned shareholder waiting to be confirmed, denied or ignored as the process Steve has put in motion unfolds.
Whether your numbers are accurate or off, it is nice to get them.
(0)
(0)