I found this even more odd than not mentioning thenew Avicanna agreement: "and a plan to generate cash in the near term."
Here my thoughts out on why I found this even more odd. They already mentioned the small piece of real estate they have for sale, it's public knowledge, sale of that land might generate around $2M. We also know of the Hexo appeal, now in October, which might also generate around $9M. These are not new facts and no surprise. Upon the acquisition of VIVO we knew they would consolidate operations for cost savings, that just happened to include a listing of some property. We have known now for around a year about the Hexo court case, the favorable judgement they received (mdjbrown has been watching developments) and now the appeal in October. So we have 2 opportunities to potentially generate around $11M in cash. I have liberally used the words 'might', 'could' and 'potentially'.
Here is what I found odd. I personally do not see that as a "plan" to generate cash in the near term future. The Hexo portion is booked into their receivables and already part of the balance sheet. The assets of VIVO are also now part of their assets including the land for sale.
So how can management say they have a plan to generate cash in the near term future when the land for sale was already discussed, in the public domain, as well as the Hexo court case which now has been dragging on.
My question to myself, does LABS have a plan not related to Hexo and land for sale that will generate cash in the near term future?
Here is why I myself am asking that question to myself: My personal position is that the cannabinoid API market and new drugs from that, from new/improved antibiotics to cancer drugs is just too big of an opportunity not to draw the attention of a bigger pharma company and want to dominate that segment. I am thinking from the business opportunity stand point here...it is just too big of a pie on the table to ignore and we know that LABS does not at all have an infrastructure capable of supporting new drug development and global distribution on their own, not on a scale that involves so many new potential drugs....hence a global pharma partner.
Was that a hint given in the earnings press release that a plan to generate cash in the near term future could possibly relate to some form of cash investment in LABS by their global pharma partner?
Recall how Constellation Brands rushed into the recreational segment gold rush and invested $5B into Canopy Growth. With FDA approval, a multitude of clinical trials, (some funded by the U.S. Gov't NIH division), is this now the right time for a big player like a global pharma company to make an equity investment in LABS?
To me the business case relative to the disruptive nature of this new drug segment would make it a no brainer for me if I were Mr. Bourla or any other CEO of a large global pharma company.
So it is the way I look at things from "60,000 feet"...the really big global picture that I found that comment as odd about having a plan to raise cash in the near term BECAUSE....they DON'T NEED CASH FOR THE SHORT TERM. They said they are already well funded to continue on and execute their business plan per the great condition of their balance sheet, $14M cash, $3M debt plus the opportunity of Hexo and land holding sale. So why make that comment in the first place of having a plan to generate cash in the near term? Note: the word generate was used in comparison to normally using 'raise' cash when you're running low as in issuing more stock.
Case in point: it is all about your 'focal point'. Are you a cluck cluck chicken scratching the dirt right at your feet looking for something while you can't see the entire field in front of you. Or another good example of focal point is Athea's detailed artwork. She loves using the ashes to form artwork from it but her artwork is extremely mathematically complex. At first glance you will see one thing from one focal point of view but as soon as you change your focal point, wow...I didnt' see that.
Peace and Tranquility to all.