Chalice Brands Ltd CHALF

RE:re: jutah70

[jutah70]

@ odzie - not exactly sure of the rules of the exchange they are on, but likely that anyone who is in management, or accumulating shares beyond certain percentages who have to report or make declarations.  But I do know the reputation of these lesser exchanges keep certain investors away.  Doesn't mean that all the companies on them are bad, or do bad things.  Just the reputation carries a higher level of risk - startups, venture, etc.  High risk no matter what sector.

What I posted was interms of opening peoples attention to some possiblites and scenarios.  I
 admit I spent a lot of time cheerleading the future outlook and upcoming catalysts.  But none of that seems to be factoring into the shareprice. They are not twilight zone.  I held BNK since 2008 and wound up losing/breaking even in 2016 because management sold out the shareholders.  And for a price at a fraction of the proven value.  Don't underestimate what this company could be sold for.  They will base it off the shareprice - not the inventory, not the buildings, not the intellectual property.  So my eyes open up a little wider after each bad experience and learning lesson.

As well, I was revisiting a book I read a few months ago (while all the nonsense was unfolding).  I could have list quote after quote of things relevant to GLH's situation.  Not sure it would have been the atmosphere to receive the quotes.  But it would have gone to show that this cr@p happens over and over and over.  People would have been suprised at the relevancy considering when this book was written.

And as for the real estate example - if it's a sh!t house, it will get a sh!t price.  But everyonce in a while someone may come along and overpay.  Not for the house, but for the land.  Your analogy is weak and misguided.    All the houses in the sector are balooining and this one is not participating.  How much more money do they have to make before some one comes to the open house?  

What I have listed is more pertinent, relevant, and plausible.  All I am doing is suggesting to shareholder to be aware of those unknowns they may not be thinking about or aware of.  I would never have imagined BNK selling out at that time, and for that price (and I am still in disbelief).  If they drop GLH to .25 and an offer comes in for 25% above technically it would be good for shareholders - what a premium above the lows (that is the way management spun things at BNK).  They didn't negotiate or fight for the value that could be proven.  And spending a year in talks with the buyer while they saw the price down and shareholders frustrated.  And similarily no one could figure out the share price disconnect.  Then a convenient tax dispute with the local government gave the price the last drop needed.  What happens to this stock if the DEA doesn't change things?

Not that I give much credence to C. Perry, but one of the articles he wrote got linked on this BB by a poster.  And in it he mentioned watch out for an upcoming deal (or merger/buyout) that was going to be huge.  Might talks for GLH already have begun back then?  For your sake (and mine) I hope I am wrong.