RE:RE:RE:When something doesn't make sense...maybe it does...I'm sorry, but I would have been more than happy to get 6$ a share 6 months ago... And even today... Look at where we are now, still sitting at 3$... I'll be happy to get a dividend one day maybe, but there is a MAYBE and that also means holding for a long time... If a recesion hits the sp500 nothing says we won't see 2$ or even 1.50$... I would have taken the SURE money anytime... And all shareholders want is to make $$$, the faster the better... Not saying I can't be patient, but SURE money now is always better than a speculation of more money later, nothing is sure in life so better take it while we could have... Not sure that was the best move to say no to suposevly large premiums you are talking about...
Merry Xmas to all and may the New Year bring us that 6$ and more...
GLTA
TBM
mesa1 wrote: Agreed!
I have my sources, and I've been told there have been several reputable overtures in the past, with large premiums, to acquire this company. We all may lament the fact that management chose to reject such offers out of hand, and not make them public, thereby not allowing the stock to get in play. However, that was the smart thing to do, as offers were largely for shares of the acquisitor. Imagine having been lured to accept a $6 takeout offer for shares, and watching those shares lose 1/2 to 2/3rds of their value!?
Management is a savvy group. They know Valens' value is $8-10 easy as is already visible now to analysts, and if allowed to grow over the next year or two should end up one of the top operators in the sector ... maybe even paying dividends in the future as a $20 stock. Can you say that about any other cannabis sector operator currently?
It's probably why no insiders would be prepared to lock up their shares to allow a takeout offer to proceed ... better to own VLNS with its visible upside than any other known operator.
So does that mean interest is no longer their to take out VLNS? Ha! Hardly.
Can there be games afoot with VLNS' share price, with a shorting account being worked in conjunction with a long account, with or without direct or indirect parties interested in keeping the share price down? You betcha! Even easy to do given the relaxed attitudes, uninspired oversight and daft rule-making (like elimination of the uptick rule) of the regulatory bodies, until a groups efforts are unveiled and it's waved in their face.
Hey, demoralize the retail base and wearout the insiders with a wall around $3, and a $5 share and cash deal starts to look appealing! If we're trading at $5 nothing short of $7.50 might prove successful. With 122 million shares o/s that's a big difference in cost! Worth setting up a few friendly insto accounts prepared to help up!
All conjecture of course, but I've been around the block a few times ;-)