RE:I addednoremac50 wrote: I just couldn't help myself. added 14 thousand and change at .18. It feels like it's close. But I've had that feeling with Quinsam before. Still have some open bids lower. But I really can't imagine Quinsam's values being anything less than 50M today. When will somebody pay full price for our basket of pure value? No idea. But I'll keep buying at and under these levels until they do.
glta
At least the math is nice and easy. As they get closer to 100M in shares o/s
The value of the portfolio was about $ 32 M Sept 30. NAV per share was .30 (because there werre a few million more shares back then.
So start by assuming 100M (slightly more but who cares)...
If you believe the portfoliio fell in value from $ 32M to $ 18M then .18 is a fair price today.
If you beleive the portfolio should be fairly valued at the Sept 30 valuation, then .30 is a fair price.
However, if you know (as many do) that most Cannabis stock ETF 's have more than doubled in value since Sept 30 and you assumed that Roger was just ONLY able to MATCH the market returns, then you might say the shares are worth at least 2X .30 or .60 each.
But then you have to ask?
With all of Roger's "in the know" positioning concerning: the industry, early US positioining, future IPO's special financings, early financings, warrant financings, debenture financigs, etc. you would think
he should be able to beat the market over time. IF that is true, then I would argue that the share price should reflect the superior returns he is able to achieve, OR a PREMIUM to NAV.
There have been numerous reports of triples and quads (and more!) since Sept 30 reported here (on some of their Sept 30 positions). Agreed we do not know if they liquidated early on some, or if they are prevented from liquidating on others.
Then there is the share buybacks which have the potential to increase NAV/sh over time.
So I will go on record as believing, until proven otherwise, that the portfolio value is closer to at least .60/share (based on current market values) and that the share price, instead of reflecting just that value (i.e .60 per) they should, in fact, command a premium, to relect Mgt's ability to beat the market, and get in on the ground floor, cash out warants, earn interest in the meantime, etc.
So .70 to .75 anyone?
Please critique my logic.
MM