RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Outstanding Shares
This is why I am taking Brayden's word that the LOI is for $115mm in an all stock deal. My brother is very schooled in merger/takeover deals and he's never heard of an arrangement where there is a share ratio that is held effective at a future date. As we all know, anything can happen before March 31 that could adversely affect the SP of either company so companies usually come to terms initially with a clear dollar amount purchase price. I think BAMM holders would be happy with a 50% return in three months and this is what the LOI was based on, on the date it was time stamped. I think this is the reason why we've seen BAMM shares sit at around $1.90 and not appreciate up to the 2.4:1 ratio (2.4 x $1.20 = $2.88). There is lots of dumping when it increases in value, and why shouldn't it be... people can sell their BAMM and buy TGIF that can appreciate further in value and yet, BAMM SP downside is limited as they know what their stock would be worth come March 31. Someone pointed out earlier that the total # of BAMM shares including those reserved for issuance was something like 59 million. That divided into $115million is roughly the current share price of BAMM. According to an email from Brayden, the deal was for $115million not 115million shares, at the time of execution. So, I'm assuming a lot of confusion was born when the example of $1/share was given. Perhaps many including the writers of the news releases and IR thought this, but this notion is contrary from my email from Brayden. I asked him what stayed constant- the 2.4:1 ratio or the $115million purchase price. His reply was "$115mm purchase price all in stock." This statement is difficult to misinterpret. This being the case, I believe both entities would engage in an acceptable deal and together become stronger and more valuable than they are separately. Just my 2 cents.