RE:Response from Spectral wrt to Dialco Thanks Eazeetrade1 for sharing Spectral's response. So they are now saying it's not material? They had dedicated a lot of press to SAMI and DIMI in every publication they gave us as shareholders. So why so much press for something that's not material? And how is the ownership of a disruptive technology in a multi billion dollar market not material? The explanation is not consistent with how they've treated it historically. Looked very material to me even if it was worth a very small fraction of the $2 B USD ($2.7B Cdn) that Outset was valued at it's material.
If you take say 350 million shares at $0.38 Cdn a share that's a market cap of $133 million Cdn for Spectral. If you value SAMI and DIMI at 5% of Outset it's $135 million Cdn. - more than the market cap of Spectral with everything in!! Even at 1% of Outset that's $27 million Cdn which is material in relation to $133 million Cdn. This was advertised by Seto and Spectral as a disruptive technology!!! How can they say it's not even worth 1% of the value of the competition it disrupts? I don't buy the no change in Spectral trading price statement. You lose 70% of a material asset and the price doesn't change. That's more a reflection on the lack of disclosure about the deal (shareholders asking what just happened?) rather than fully informed shareholders reacting to a fully disclosed transaction.
And now they're telling us that Infomed is preventing disclosure of the transaction? That's new and hadn't been previously disclosed. Begs the question why you have to give someone 70% of your asset for no money but can't tell the owners of the asset given away the details? Sheer nonsense.
And then a teaser that you may get something more in the annual financials and MD&A in March. Is that because it's material? No other reason for disclosure other than it's material. The more they speak the more obvious it becomes that something is being hidden.