321PMAC wrote: Dilution from BaM has not occured yet and will only occur upon closing of the acquisition.
Dilution is a result of placement participants (from both Quickflo placements in March & April and the July brokered placement), converting debenture units and excercising warrants. Note, mid-Nov ~80m shares were reserved for issuance, today that umber is closer to ~40m.
I strongly encourage you to conduct some additional research regarding BaM.
Why do you think TGIF is willing to value BaM equal to or in excess of TGIF's current valuation?
Why is TGIF willing to pay a premium for BaM?
I'll give you a couple things to think about -
- BaM operates twice (2x) the production canopy that TGIF currently has.
- BaM has $10m USD cash on hand.
- BaM leadership owns in excess of 25% of the company.
- BaM's 30k sf expansion is an already constructed building located next to their current 20k sf building.
- BaM currently trades at ~47% of TGIF's market cap.
The choice to position an investment in BaM is not based upon an acquisition arbitrage opportunity, it is based upon the grossly undervalued position that BaM is currently in.
BaM today is the equivalent of investing in TGIF in July. With or without the acquisition.
BaM's NV asset is the Nevada Medical Group. They are to BaM as AMA is to TGIF. The Nevada Medical Group has been cultivating as long as AMA, they were the 3rd licensed medicinal cultivator in the State.
Happy that you appreciate the input and analysis and hope that you give some further consideration to what I'm saying above.
steveo013 wrote: Not sure your comments make sense: why would it ONLY apply to TGIF and not other plays in California? I think it’s ‘mostly’ what 321 says: the potential dilution from BAMM.
Wouldnt it be strange turn of events if the deal fell through, and all those that sold TGIF for BAMM guessed wrong?
Either way, I always appreciate 321’s input and analysis. Thank you kind Sir.