|
Post by Macgruber on Sept 24, 2015 15:28:34 GMT
See below, was trying to post this earlier. Kept quoting ppl when trying to post my own words. Anyway sorry for the confusion
All,
Talked to Cory again today in IR
I wanted to get a better understanding on the secrecy of the deal expected to close at the end of Sept, mainly why they haven't announced the prospective country. The explanation has to do with how competitive these government contracts can be. They feel like they have a great position with that country and surrounding nations with very little competition. They don't want to give away who they are dealing with prior to the 1st deal getting done. I can understand this thinking myself. Additionally in many cases (not this deal in specific) there is involvement with the country's military which typically requires that info to be confidential. If and after this first deal is closed they may not mention who it is with all together. Sentiment still remains very high and if the deal doesnt close by the 30th they will issue a pr with an update explaining things are still in the process of closing. If that is the case it would be great to have some cash on the sidelines furbish, as we all know ppl will panic and there will be some better entry points. Wish I could get more info out of him, he did tell me this company is his largest holding lol. I guess what else is he supposed to say. Im holding on here, GL everyone
|
|
|
Post by biposter on Sept 25, 2015 6:34:28 GMT
Furbush/All, First, apologies in advance for possibly drawing dotted lines connecting dots that don’t exist, but I think a poster (“radiodude”) on StockHouse first brought this up a few days ago (& repeated today), and then another poster ("Aaron.Rhodes") also threw out this possibility in the SA comments. First, here’s A.R.’s post: www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/t.imp/intermap-technologies-corporation/3?postid=24131828- “This is old news from august, but was posted on Friday to the Intermap twitter feed: bit.ly/1KqD7N6. The "champions" of this African accur8data group are all connected to financial institutions, such as the world bank bit.ly/1KqD7fT. The article cites the September session of the U.N. general assembly as being an important place to talk about the availability of big data in the context of meeting U.N. sustainable development goals. The timing, the countries involved, and the posting of this article (doesn't mention Intermap at all) seem quite suggestive that Intermap may be involved with this organization's push for more accurate data for each of their countries. (Why post something completely unconnected to the company? Speculative, but enough for me.) I purchased more.”
seekingalpha.com/article/3495636-intermap-multiple-deals-are-nearing-completion#comments_headerSo they mention that @intermap tweeted this last Friday: "Africa data revolution: Accurate #maps & #business intel needed 4development: hubs.ly/H01bss80 RT @accur8africa" The linked article in this tweet states: “A group of prominent African leaders in the field of data and innovation from Ghana, Kenya, Zambia, Rwanda and Senegal announced the launch of the Accur8Africa platform to improve the accuracy of data in the continent before the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in New York this coming September at the 70th United Nation General Assembly.” RadioDude mentions that the 70th session of the U.N. is underway now, and that this Mon., 9/28, from 3pm-6pm ET at the Waldorf Astoria in NY, there will be an event called: “Launch of the New Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data.” This event is further described in this official UN GDoc: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16UoEb_jBhVYDBx6jPGt4phLY_BYyhYF6xGpJMIBUoaE/pubhtml- "This high-level event will launch a new Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data, mobilizing governments, companies, civil society, and academic institutions to support the data revolution for the SDGs. The event will feature a heads-of-state panel to announce the partnership, make specific commitments, and respond to queries from the media and participants."
So RadioDude later comments that this could be why “they were confident in the end of September close date as stated in the last conference call.” The analyst Mark Gomes thinks the gov’t contract is with a central African country, and of all the 52 comments in his latest SA article, he selects only one comment as his “Author’s Picks” ...Aaron.Rhodes’ comment. seekingalpha.com/article/3495636-intermap-multiple-deals-are-nearing-completion#comments_headerSo, might Intermap’s announcement be tied to this Mon’s U.N. event when some of the African nations’ heads-of-state are in attendance ready “to announce the partnership, make specific commitments”? Can anyone go the the Jade Room on the 3rd fl. of the Waldorf this Mon. between 3-6pm ET? Just kidding, it's not even open to the public. Keep in mind, a lot of this (maybe all of it) is very speculative and just guessing. We’ll see.
|
|
|
Post by furbush87 on Sept 28, 2015 22:33:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kclawdog on Sept 29, 2015 14:39:41 GMT
Aaand delayed. But a potential silver lining. linkNot sure what this means for financing them to keep going, though.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Sept 29, 2015 15:10:52 GMT
Aaand delayed. But a potential silver lining. linkNot sure what this means for financing them to keep going, though. Happy thoughts first. This looks like it is a short term delay and solely due to the sovereign client wanting to add more technology (value) to the contract. Unhappy thoughts. Hopefully management learned a lesson that less means more. Aka, don't get overly-giddy on conference calls making quasi-promises you can't live up to. I went ahead and added at $.35. Potentially a gullible move on my part. They are going to need to wrap this thing up soon before they run out of cash.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Sept 29, 2015 15:13:32 GMT
Wow. Almost back in the green after being down over 20%.
|
|
|
Post by kclawdog on Sept 29, 2015 15:19:30 GMT
Congrats, you did pretty great with your ONCS and ITMSF purchases!
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Sept 29, 2015 15:30:00 GMT
Congrats, you did pretty great with your ONCS and ITMSF purchases! What can I say. Sometimes a guy gets lucky
|
|
|
Post by furbush87 on Sept 30, 2015 14:25:10 GMT
Aaand delayed. But a potential silver lining. linkNot sure what this means for financing them to keep going, though. Happy thoughts first. This looks like it is a short term delay and solely due to the sovereign client wanting to add more technology (value) to the contract. Unhappy thoughts. Hopefully management learned a lesson that less means more. Aka, don't get overly-giddy on conference calls making quasi-promises you can't live up to. I went ahead and added at $.35. Potentially a gullible move on my part. They are going to need to wrap this thing up soon before they run out of cash. I get the feeling that sometime in the last 4-6 weeks the client decided they wanted more service. Which meant ITMSF had to give them additional quotes. I think they took the safe route this time by saying "next few weeks". I doubt this is more than a 2 week delay, but that is just a gut feeling. All of this contract is based on the assumption that the country can get financing. More than likely the contract exceeds their GDP, so it will have to be financed. The good news is that the UN has agreed to send money for infrastructure to afica, and landlocked nations. China is giving money to africa as is the U.S. so I don't believe money is an issue at all. No nation can develop without SDI.
|
|
|
Post by biposter on Sept 30, 2015 20:54:50 GMT
Just a quick update on ITMSF’s $125M-$175M mega-deal. Three posters elsewhere (ITMSF IHub MB, SH MB, SA comments) claim that they contacted ITMSF’s I/R within the last few days, including one today. Supposedly, Cory Pala spoke with them and seems to have either confirmed or hinted positively that the deal is still scheduled to close by end of Sept. I guess the caveat is, when did I/R last speak directly w/ mgmt? Is Cory’s information current as of today? But anyway… here are the message posts: - “I spoke with Investor Relations at Intermap today... they expect the awarded SDI to finalize in September. And IF the deal is delayed, they do not expect it to fall through altogether. That is huge IMO. As far as the second deal, they still believe it will close by year end but mentioned that does not mean December 31. It could be a lot sooner. They also threw out Q1 2016 as a possibility. But the big take away here is the awarded SDI is still on target to close in September and any delay does not mean the deal is falling through.”
- (kuligka1, Seeking Alpha, 9/22 at 12:32pm)(this is probably Ken Kulig -- twitter handle @ken_Kulig)
- seekingalpha.com/article/3495636-intermap-multiple-deals-are-nearing-completion#comments_header
- "JUST SPOKE TO CORY YES THERE WILL BE AN ANNOUNCEMENT THIS MONTH. He thinks the stock still has place to move. Speaking to him it seeme he thought $1 pps is fairer value. Here ito hoping soon !!!”
- (dailin, StockHouse.com, 9/18)
- I just spoke with Cory Pala in investor relations… Even though we don't have any official news since the last conf call, I asked him if sentiment still remains high and he responded with "Yes, and hang in there". Sorry wish I had more to add”
- (Macgruber, IHub, 9/18) (Macgruber, I believe, is a member here on the BI mb, so this gives me more confidence that ITMSF I/R’s Cory Pala did indeed speak with these folks. If you click on the IHub link, just for some context, someone tried to post a false message claiming that the mega-contract closed last week, and Macgruber contacted I/R to get clarification.)
- investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=117081754
Anyway, I guess we’ll see. Looks like it’s just one deal, not two, that should close by the end of Q3, with the second deal likely to close in Q4. So, what’s the key risk? Assuming the truth of Ken Kulig’s SA comment today, it looks like *IF* there were to be a delay, it wouldn’t mean that the deal has fallen through, which is reassuring and puts a floor on the pps. Yet if Sept. passes with no PR confirming the closing of the deal, the pps could still take a hit. Looks like others have already played the runup and have taken profits and are currently out and actually hoping there’s a delay so that they can load up much cheaper. Anyway, maybe it’s better to take a 1/2 to 3/4 position now, and buy on the drop if there actually is a delay, which doesn’t seem likely at this point (Wouldn’t I/R at least attempt to temper expectations with just one week left in Q3 if literally everything wasn’t fully nailed down? But I guess it also depends also on how up-to-date I/R's info is). I hope Furbush doesn’t mind, but this was his response to Ken Kulig: - “That is in line with what I was expecting/thinking. At this point in time if they are still expecting it to close in 8 days, they are very confident and it would have to be something unusual that delayed it. The 2nd deal will get my interest after the first one closes. Till then, sounds very comfortable to me.” (S. Furbush, SA comments, 9/22 at 2:04pm)
------------------------------------------- Macgruber (9/24, 8:28am): Talked to Cory again today in IR I wanted to get a better understanding on the secrecy of the deal expected to close at the end of Sept, mainly why they haven't announced the prospective country. The explanation has to do with how competitive these government contracts can be. They feel like they have a great position with that country and surrounding nations with very little competition. They don't want to give away who they are dealing with prior to the 1st deal getting done. I can understand this thinking myself. Additionally in many cases (not this deal in specific) there is involvement with the country's military which typically requires that info to be confidential. If and after this first deal is closed they may not mention who it is with all together. Sentiment still remains very high and if the deal doesnt close by the 30th they will issue a pr with an update explaining things are still in the process of closing. If that is the case it would be great to have some cash on the sidelines furbish, as we all know ppl will panic and there will be some better entry points. Wish I could get more info out of him, he did tell me this company is his largest holding lol. I guess what else is he supposed to say. Im holding on here, GL everyone Well, last week to Ken Kulig, I/R still seemed set on Sept.: - Ken Kulig: “I spoke with Investor Relations at Intermap today… they expect the awarded SDI to finalize in September...But the big take away here is the awarded SDI is still on target to close in September and any delay does not mean the deal is falling through”
Couple days later to our own Macgruber (btw, thanks for taking the time to call Cory and sharing it with us here), maybe just some slight hedging? - Macgruber: “Talked to Cory again today in IR… Sentiment still remains very high and if the deal doesnt close by the 30th they will issue a pr with an update explaining things are still in the process of closing. If that is the case it would be great to have some cash on the sidelines furbish, as we all know ppl will panic and there will be some better entry points.”
Then hearing directly from the CEO Todd Oseth in the Midas Letter interview posted on Mon., 9/28, when talking about the previously Q3-guided mega-deal, he says: And in yesterday’s PR announcing the delay to the expanded contract, ITMSF states: - "Although we believe that we are close to completing the Definitive Agreements associated with the previously announced Letter of Award, the process has taken longer than we inititally anticipated as additional services have been proposed," said Todd Oseth, President and CEO of Intermap Technologies.”
- "I'm pleased to report that the expanded scope discussions of the project relate directly to Intermap's extensive capabilities within the geospatial industry.”
- “We remain confident that we will be able to report the conclusion of the Definitive Agreements within the coming weeks."
- www.intermap.com/pressreleases/2015/9/intermap-provides-update-on-previously-announced-125m-letter-of-award
So, going by what they are directly saying, they are “close to completing” the mega-deal, “confident [they] will be able to report the conclusion...within the coming weeks,” and “in the midst of closing all of the financial terms of that deal very soon.” And assuming I/R was aware of this contract expansion request by the sovereign nation and still felt comfortable guiding end of Sept. as late as last week, hopefully, this is a minor delay as it slips into Oct., and the closing of the deal is imminent.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Oct 1, 2015 14:25:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Oct 1, 2015 14:30:59 GMT
I could ultimately lose every penny I put into this one, but it would have nothing to do with the past financing and the current cash position of the company. If ITMSF can't finalize any deals, then they are toast, and I think everyone recognizes that. That is definitely a risk at this point, but to say "the wheels are clearly coming off!" is definitely a comment from someone who hasn't really done much DD with this company.
|
|
|
Post by furbush87 on Oct 1, 2015 22:33:21 GMT
Jham, I am not familiar with JMY, so could you elaborate for me why you said "JMY of all people"? Ultimately JMY is correct as far as risk factors go. What he failed miserably to address is what happens when this deal goes through. He started with the basis that this deal won't complete (which means the 17.5% royalties will be worth nothing and the debt will never be repaid), then discussed how the 17.5% royalty will limit any profitability for years. I don't think this article was more than a cursory investigation. I don't think much of JMY's report as he/she obviously wrote a surface level article. No DD at all about the potential, or odds of success. I say that, even though I agree 100% with the article as a thorough research of the downside only.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Oct 2, 2015 3:03:09 GMT
Jham, I am not familiar with JMY, so could you elaborate for me why you said "JMY of all people"? Ultimately JMY is correct as far as risk factors go. What he failed miserably to address is what happens when this deal goes through. He started with the basis that this deal won't complete (which means the 17.5% royalties will be worth nothing and the debt will never be repaid), then discussed how the 17.5% royalty will limit any profitability for years. I don't think this article was more than a cursory investigation. I don't think much of JMY as he/she obviously wrote a surface level article. No DD at all about the potential, or odds of success. I say that, even though I agree 100% with the article as a thorough research of the downside only. furbush, JMY is a friend of mine. He used to be pretty active on some message boards and we got to know each other pretty well over that time. We still communicate on a regular basis. I said "JMY of all people", because he usually writes about biotech and usually writes about stocks he owns or is interested in owning (as he mention at the outset of his article). So this one sort of came out of left field. I knew he didn't like this stock, but was not expecting an article. He is very smart with a background in finance.
|
|
|
Post by drbullard on Oct 2, 2015 11:50:08 GMT
JHam, As I stated in the article, I did this one pro bono. As for as my level of DD, I applaud the company. The provide audited financial statements back to 2006 on their website. I read them and I know my way around a financial statement. That's how you do DD and analyze a company. Too many investors don't even thoroughly read a company's financial statement. That's how Buffett finds his investments. He sits in a warm bath and reads financial statements. I'll get off my soapbox now. Regarding why the article was one sided and I didn't provide my normal risk/return analysis, it's because my best case doesn't show a return. Here's what I provided furbush in a PM on SA. I'll share it here for what it's worth. This is assuming the contract goes through. You can agree or disagree. Good luck.
There's a lot of unknown variables but we can make some assumptions. Even though revenues were light in 2015, if we assume net revenues as a percent of gross revenues holds, you can take the royalties paid in the interim statements to determine what percentage of the contract would go to Intermap vs. the subs. From there, you need to take 17.5% off to account for the royalties. Operating expenses are more subjective since this company's never covered them. The best in the industry is around 20% net margins but after the royalty that's only 3%. These are highly risky ventures to finance, so the financier will take their pound of flesh so 3% is probably best case. Here's what it looks like to me assuming a $150MM contract best case:
Based on interim statements 41% goes to Intermap - $150MM x 41% = $61.5MM / 2 = $30.75MM per year. Assuming 3% net margin = $922M net profit.
P/E of 40x based on current stock price, 51x fully diluted (25 million warrants are in the money at .08)
The analysis is obviously only as good as the assumptions. Looks way over valued bast case based on current valuations. I only wrote about Intermap and did the analysis due to intellectual curiosity. I wish you luck regardless of the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by furbush87 on Oct 2, 2015 12:25:20 GMT
JHam, As I stated in the article, I did this one pro bono. As for as my level of DD, I applaud the company. The provide audited financial statements back to 2006 on their website. I read them and I know my way around a financial statement. That's how you do DD and analyze a company. Too many investors don't even thoroughly read a company's financial statement. That's how Buffett finds his investments. He sits in a warm bath and reads financial statements. I'll get off my soapbox now. Regarding why the article was one sided and I didn't provide my normal risk/return analysis, it's because my best case doesn't show a return. Here's what I provided furbush in a PM on SA. I'll share it here for what it's worth. This is assuming the contract goes through. You can agree or disagree. Good luck. There's a lot of unknown variables but we can make some assumptions. Even though revenues were light in 2015, if we assume net revenues as a percent of gross revenues holds, you can take the royalties paid in the interim statements to determine what percentage of the contract would go to Intermap vs. the subs. From there, you need to take 17.5% off to account for the royalties. Operating expenses are more subjective since this company's never covered them. The best in the industry is around 20% net margins but after the royalty that's only 3%. These are highly risky ventures to finance, so the financier will take their pound of flesh so 3% is probably best case. Here's what it looks like to me assuming a $150MM contract best case: Based on interim statements 41% goes to Intermap - $150MM x 41% = $61.5MM / 2 = $30.75MM per year. Assuming 3% net margin = $922M net profit. P/E of 40x based on current stock price, 51x fully diluted (25 million warrants are in the money at .08) The analysis is obviously only as good as the assumptions. Looks way over valued bast case based on current valuations. I only wrote about Intermap and did the analysis due to intellectual curiosity. I wish you luck regardless of the outcome. Even though I disagree with you, I greatly appreciate the opposing view. Far too easy to fall into a confirmation bias in any investment. So now I guess we wait too see what happens in the future for this company. Thanks again for the research.
|
|
|
Post by furbush87 on Oct 2, 2015 23:54:41 GMT
I was overly harsh in my statement against drbullard. I apologize for that. I do not think he is correct, nor do I believe he did enough DD. That may be because I've spent around 30 hrs on it myself, but I was inappropriate in my statement. Applogise all around. I fully expect the 1st deal to close shortly, followed closely by the 2nd, for those that are risk adverse, watch closely for the debt to be repaid early, if that happens, ESRI will buy them out most likely.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Oct 6, 2015 9:01:16 GMT
JHam, As I stated in the article, I did this one pro bono. As for as my level of DD, I applaud the company. The provide audited financial statements back to 2006 on their website. I read them and I know my way around a financial statement. That's how you do DD and analyze a company. Too many investors don't even thoroughly read a company's financial statement. That's how Buffett finds his investments. He sits in a warm bath and reads financial statements. I'll get off my soapbox now. Regarding why the article was one sided and I didn't provide my normal risk/return analysis, it's because my best case doesn't show a return. Here's what I provided furbush in a PM on SA. I'll share it here for what it's worth. This is assuming the contract goes through. You can agree or disagree. Good luck. There's a lot of unknown variables but we can make some assumptions. Even though revenues were light in 2015, if we assume net revenues as a percent of gross revenues holds, you can take the royalties paid in the interim statements to determine what percentage of the contract would go to Intermap vs. the subs. From there, you need to take 17.5% off to account for the royalties. Operating expenses are more subjective since this company's never covered them. The best in the industry is around 20% net margins but after the royalty that's only 3%. These are highly risky ventures to finance, so the financier will take their pound of flesh so 3% is probably best case. Here's what it looks like to me assuming a $150MM contract best case: Based on interim statements 41% goes to Intermap - $150MM x 41% = $61.5MM / 2 = $30.75MM per year. Assuming 3% net margin = $922M net profit. P/E of 40x based on current stock price, 51x fully diluted (25 million warrants are in the money at .08) The analysis is obviously only as good as the assumptions. Looks way over valued bast case based on current valuations. I only wrote about Intermap and did the analysis due to intellectual curiosity. I wish you luck regardless of the outcome. Bullard, Thanks for this analysis. It is definitely helps my learning/thinking process to see everything packaged like this in one easy to understand post. While I completely agree with the analysis based on your assumptions, where we differ is that I don't necessarily agree with those assumptions. If things stay the way they are, then your analysis is spot on. The company will be finished and shareholders will get taken to the cleaners. After I read through the Q2 report (after the stock was mentioned here), I didn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. After reading some interviews and listening to some of the ccs (especially the Q&A portion) however, my mind obviously changed a bit on this one. I think there is much more to the story than what is in the filings. My assumption is that they will be able to land a major SDI contract in the next few weeks (leading to more in the future...we already know there is a bigger one on the table), pay back their debt, clean up the balance sheet, restructure the royalty clause with Vertex, and either continue to grow strong into the future, or get bought out (which I think is more likely). Of course there are no guarantees that any the above will happen. If they can't finalize a contract then it is all over anyway and nothing else matters. If they can't (if Vertex won't) restructure the royalty agreement then it is dead money for shareholders. If they do indeed land a $175M-$200M deal in the next few weeks, they will be able to pay off their debt. The only thing then standing in their way keeping them from being bought out, imo, would be the Vertex royalty clause. I know you disagree with me strongly on this, and I read your numbers on what the difference would be if they kept the clause as is into the future, but I still believe there is no way they don't restructure it. At the time when Vertex was pouring money into the company, it was extremely high risk for them, and they were getting almost nothing in return. They could have acquired the company seeing how much they dumped in, but they didn't, and for me that says something. I am pasting a snippet from the Q2 CC Q&A on this very issue: Unidentified Analyst - Bank of Montreal
Okay, may I just address the Vertex for one moment please, Vertex has accumulated approximately I believe 19.9% or 20% of the company?
Todd Oseth - President and CEO
That is correct.
Unidentified Analyst - Bank of Montreal
Okay, once the royalty deal that was done earlier in the year, done as a means of getting some funding and this current promissory note in the bridge [ph], is it a means of keeping the company going to an extent without going beyond the 20% because I am not sure the structure of Vertex but in Canada certain fund companies cannot hold more than 20% of a company, was that a concern that you know of?
Richard Mohr - SVP and CFO
Yes, it was. The another thing to remember when it comes to Vertex, I am just going to expand on that when it comes to Vertex, when Vertex stepped in the February timeframe and started providing debt to us that is definitely the definition of risk capital. And if you think about how much money they put in during the February, March, April Timeframe the amount of money they put in was very equivalent if not exceeding the market capital of the company. So theoretically –
Unidentified Analyst - Bank of Montreal
But in the grand scheme of things it was really, really small relative to what they were able to get out of it potentially if that verdict be converted let’s say?
Richard Mohr - SVP and CFO
Exactly but during that period of time obviously there were still risks associated with this and there is still today. And the fact that they didn’t acquire the entire company when they probably could have, kind of gives you an indication of the way they look at Intermap and the fact that they do not walk on the company. That’s not the business they are in. And the royalty was a way of providing compensation when there weren’t any additional equity instruments available to them.
Unidentified Analyst - Bank of Montreal
Absolutely and I applaud them for what they have done, it’s a good way of doing it, etc. At what point in time do you see their royalty potentially being converted to equity?
Richard Mohr - SVP and CFO
We don’t know that for sure. Vertex is a friend of the company. They have been absolutely fantastic to work with. Their intentions I know are not onerous in nature. I would assume that if there were a transactions that we had regarding that royalty it would be at some point in time when a portion of the debt has been repaid or at least all of it has been repaid.
|
|
|
Post by drbullard on Oct 6, 2015 12:04:05 GMT
Thanks JHam. This is what I love about investing and why I wrote about this company. The information services industry has net margins of 13.78% and software systems and applications has 17.34% so the 17.5% royalty has more value than 100% ownership in those companies. They already own 100% of this company vis-a-vis the royalty. Your ownership interest as a shareholder is subordinate to them and is worth zero. You just don't know it. If they wanted to cash out they could just sell the royalty stream. Is it possible that they will restructure? Yes, it's possible but not very probable given what they have today is more valuable than 100% of the company. It just intrigues me that people would invest in a company that, as currently structured, has zero value for shareholders. The best you can hope for is the greater fool theory.
|
|
|
Post by furbush87 on Oct 7, 2015 13:30:49 GMT
Thanks JHam. This is what I love about investing and why I wrote about this company. The information services industry has net margins of 13.78% and software systems and applications has 17.34% so the 17.5% royalty has more value than 100% ownership in those companies. They already own 100% of this company vis-a-vis the royalty. Your ownership interest as a shareholder is subordinate to them and is worth zero. You just don't know it. If they wanted to cash out they could just sell the royalty stream. Is it possible that they will restructure? Yes, it's possible but not very probable given what they have today is more valuable than 100% of the company. It just intrigues me that people would invest in a company that, as currently structured, has zero value for shareholders. The best you can hope for is the greater fool theory. When have you known "the greater fool theory" not to work in penny stocks We are obviously reading the royalty agreement differently. I read it as 17.5% of the net revenue, meaning if they bring in $100 Vertex gets $17.50 leaving Intermap $82.50 for themselves and shareholders. Regardless the 17.5% will have little value if Intermap is not allowed to grow and they continue to only bring in $10M a year in revenue (their margins by the way range from 50-90% depending on the product from what I have been told). Ultimately, this is a gamble on the deal being signed. If they don't it is dead money.
|
|