Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

IWG TECHNOLOGIES INC V.IWG

"IWG Technologies Inc through its subsidiary is engaged in developing, manufacturing and selling aircraft water treatment equipment, on-demand water heaters and water systems."


TSXV:IWG - Post by User

Comment by SolidFuelon Dec 19, 2016 2:47pm
174 Views
Post# 25620689

RE:today's trading

RE:today's tradingOPFunds,  Having watched the same unusual trading pattern (BMO and Paradigm taking-out all of the large bids... and no new bids having been put up) I came to a different conclusion.

My assumption is that the buyer is still there wanting to steal IWG... but, having now read the pathetic joke of a Fairness Opinion in the info circular, I am guessing that "Mr. Market" does not see this arrangement being approved by shareholders. 

Take a look at the following blurb, which has been cut and paste from the IWG info circular released on Friday, and in particular, which is taken from the fairness opinion as prepared by Working Capital Corporation (a fancy name for one Christopher Gulka):

WCC examined the adjusted EBITDA of the Company for FYs 2012 – 2015 and the budgeted results FY 2016. WCC calculated a weighted average EBITDA for the Company and applied a multiple derived from the comparable company analysis outlined above. The range of value calculated was supportive of the Consideration. 

Are you f@c#-ing kidding me?  You calculated a "weighted average EBITDA" for a four year period?   A four year period where the company nearly doubled in size through growth????  Is this a joke?  How about using the actual EBITDA for 2016... the year in which this plan of arrangement is actually supposed to take place?

I honestly cannot believe this is happening?

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>