RE:RE:Why Did Investors Bail?Edson88888 wrote: I haven't checked it out yet but are we being shorted into oblivion? I have forewarned that if our share prices is purposely tanked it is because we are a prime target to be bought out OR shennanigans to buy up as much cheap shares as possible from the inside.
With us going lower and lower 2 things will happen. Be a bought out or consolidate (again).
The last possible outcome or reason for why our share price is dropping could be that PLAN is a scam. I can't confirm or back up that claim either (I don't believe so but our share price tells a different story).
Your thoughts phantom?
Shorts were negligible at the mid October update so I doubt this is a short attack. I think it's a confluence of events that's led to the sell off:
1) Rising rates always lead to more risk off treatment of micro cap companies, which is very logical. When the cost of capital is higher, companies way down the food chain are at a far greater risk, so liquidity and interest in the small/micro caps wanes.
2) The late financial filing probably rubbed some retail investors the wrong way, especially with the market backdrop being so poor. I also have a sense that retail impatience converged with tax loss selling for a perfect storm this year. The company was very transparent with the commercialization timeline on the investor deck for all to see, so there is no surprise that the legacy operation is all we can expect while they try to move their AgTech and SCM technologies toward commercialization but retail is oftentimes fickle and this is a thinly traded stock.
3) While the company continues to allay investors concerns w.r.t. no imminent cash raise at these lows, retail, including me, wants to see just how they fund the $5M pozglass plant. This is a very expensive undertaking for an unproven technology in which LaFarge offered no advance payment as part of the purchase agreement. Why did PLAN not get partial buy-in or up-front funds to help offset construction costs? I'm also guessing the sales terms really favored LaFarge in this transaction, meaning this prove out phase is not about altering the revenue/earnings stream and will be solely dependent on LaFarge's decision to stamp their seal of approval.
4) In the past, I've been critical of all the related party transactions/compensation to personnel including the ceo, an officer, a director and an outside business owned by the CFO. While all of these transactions are likely entirely above board, the optics are still quite poor. Add to that this latest extremely questionable decision to write off all costs incurred on the Heffley Creek property, which is frankly baffling based on what's been disclosed to investors in the MD&A. Why incur all cash and exploration costs for 4 years only to opt out of 100% ownership before just one final $15K cash payment? If the APL properties were far superior, why not opt out of Heffley last year? This decision obviously benefits the land owner in a big way and again creates very optics!
Full disclosure: I own a partial position in PLAN but am neutral for now.