RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:[I have a NEW policy]Ok pip...I respect your posts and hope you can respond to this:
MG published a spreadsheet illustrating how the SP could reach $1 to $2 or more.
This was based on closure of 1 or 2 SDI's...and correct me if im wrong, also included the royalty.
JMY calls MG a 'well respected SA poster'... so one assumes some credibility there.
What has changed since then? More debt of course (leaving the non-closure delays out for a moment)...and where did all of this debt come from...CHASING SDI's I beleive.
Why wouldnt a respected poster not account for time value of money and the cost of chasing SDI's?
Even if MG's calcs assumed a reduction in royalty, that royalty reduction is still on the table is it not?
So
the only real change is the debt. Its up $15m or so (dont quote me on that just guesstimating).
Assuming the SDI's are REAL, and that there are still 2 near term, then what really has changed?
If all of a sudden that $1-$2 isnt achievable (less new debts), then how can JMY respect MG?
Hey, is Forest correct...MG was there to allow institutions a way out (and I choose not to believe that)...and if so, then what respect should one have for JMY (who claims MG is respected)?
I personally feel any costs associated in CHASING SDI's should be compensated (in some new arrangement), but wether or not that happens, MG's calcs should still ring true (less debts etc) shouldnt they?
pipsqueak3 wrote: agreed.. full thoughts here:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4000551-intermap-technologies-enterprise-value-approach#comment-73214039