RE:RE:cut through the BSThen i would think you would stay away from the company and move on with your life.
Nothing is so simple to understand aside from the past, as the future is not written. You only have a guess as well.
Many companies raise cash for various reasons, but mainly because they do not have enough. These companies are not all insolvent - they are cash strapped.
That being said if the circumstances dont change they will need to raise. If circumstance changes they may not.
It seems to me that you have something personal with the company or are holding the bag yourself. (I dont visit the blackberry site, i sold my shares.)
The license still has value and it will not likely be abandonned, but there is a real possibility of dillution.
I think that the older greenhouses should be converted into GMP processing areas, leaving 750,000 sq ft as grow space, start the 2.0 products and most importantly get some real re-occurring sales.
When the SP is low all the heroes are out trying tho save the rest of us from bad investments. When stocks rise the heroes become cowards and stay home so they can never be wrong.
I do agree that the risk is high, but way better than a lottery, more like 50 rounds of black jack, you win a little, lose a little, are likely coming out with less then you went in with, but occassionaly come home with 5-10 times what you started with, and in my case win what you lose and lose what you've won. Free drinks and hotel in Vegas after 20 trips down 2-3,000, maybe up after 21 trips.
If you can get a loan you are not insolvent. look at the deals out there now, 10% would be too low for interest, north of 10 is accurate. It is when you can't get a loan or raise cash you are insolvent. (technically it would be when the fair value of the assets is less tan the fair value of its liabilities, and in general you cant get a loan in these circumstances, a raise has no debt associated with it.) They are not in good shape - when i was young i heards all of this buying amazon for $100. No profit, guiys a fool. Never make any money, don't see anyone saying that now. Well me - i think it is overvalued, dont own any more shares so i am not on their board either.
RoguesGallery wrote: MJVigilante...You basically contradict yourself saying they aren't going insolvent by suggesting they pretty much need additional financing in order to stay afloat. That's like saying a person can stay afloat getting a loan at interest rates north of 10% in order to pay the bills and keep the lights on but hey, it can be done right?
The appetite for financing in these companies has all but dried up outside of more dilution which at these prices is the kiss of death. It simply isn't feasible nor practical for people to park money in a stock using shareholders as an ATM with a business plan heavily predicated on German sales to make a go of it. The idea they are going to reap any benefit from contracts before they hit the wall financially is also delusional but I think its most disturbing you believe more share issuance is acceptable given the state of the stock to date and destruction of shareholder equity we've witnessed here. No sane, rational person is going to put money in a company like this save for the shjts-and-giggles gamble it is if you have some spare change kicking around. That's the case for this investment and its anorexic at best.
Fact is RBC owns this company insofar as they own its fixed assets and the rest is just smoke and mirrors based entirely on hitting some sort of jackpot. Your argument therefore is little better than playing roulette at the casino or buying some lotto tickets for a chance at the million dollar jackpot. Insolvency and or restructuring will happen here sooner than any boon from contracts and the only way this thing will see $1 is through a reverse split. Just that simple.