RE:DissidentChinookGeo - your posts are always topical and bring balance to this weird stock ride. I Read the news release entitled "Kulwant Malhi and BullRun Capital Obtain Court Order to Solicit Proxies and Announce Shareholder Nominees to Replace GrowMax Board" wherein it outlines the four new director nominees and the rationale as "concerned shareholders".
All I can say is that I wish I had gotten out a long time ago and I'm sure many shareholders hold a similar sentiment. Sure, its not unusual to find a business that just needs an injection of cash and expertise to bring it to another operational level and profitability. But does Fertimar/PrimaSea look and feel like that to anyone here given that we have watched management struggle to find purpose? What of the Peruvian asset and the vision for SOP and the high value local fertilizer market they spoke of? Is that dead and buried and at what cost to shareholders did we go down that rabbit hole only to end up here? Can PrimaSea become a profitable entity to complement the future Peruvian asset and thus fulfill the GrowMax vision of becoming a true fertilizer company?
The problem is that we as shareholders don't know, and the fact that there are so many questions is why there is so much discontent on this borad. Management by word and action has not demonstarted nor convinced us that the GrowMax future is bright and promising. From the GrowMax website:
"Additionally, this transaction allows GrowMax to conserve most of its cash and will allow us to continue to seek other opportunities for growth or consolidation. PrimaSea operates in a high-growth, high-value sector with significant barriers to entry and has multiple revenue streams feeding into two compelling markets: animal feed and plant nutrients. We will also have access to the greater margins available as a certified organic, non-GMO producer. This is a truly transformative transaction that we believe will increase value for our shareholders."
An expansion plan that calls for:
"A fleet expansion expansion will be implemented in one of four four ways:
1. Addition of several same-sized ships;
2. Additional larger ship with 1,500t per trip capacity;
3. Implementation of barges system;
4. Creation of a floating extraction platform with barges."
Already the vision isn't clear (one of four ways) on how to proceed and frankly, who gives a Rat's Behind how "transformative" it is? We need to know how and when it will make money and build value. Perhaps I missed it but where are the forward looking cash flows in the presentation? There is a maintenace section and page 37 tells us that their only ship will be drydocked in 2019 (next year) for maintenance (for how long?).
Then there is the percentage of control (59.5%) management will have after the deal which efectivelly and forever will silence the voice of small shareholders. After the deal they can, and will, do what they want and hence we need to decide if we trust them to make this plan work?
Could we be "trading the devil for a witch" with regards to helping the Bullrun team take the reins? Maybe. But we have seen what the devil can do and frankly, after mulling this over, I'm comfortable to support Bullrun. Let them have a go and see if they can't do a better job to increase overall shareholder value.
My five cents, to each their own...