- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: When will Tsnp crash??
Posted on 2/25/21 at 5:01 am to slackster
Posted on 2/25/21 at 5:01 am to slackster
quote:
You tell me why a multi billion dollar company would choose an OTC SPAC?
They did not choose a SPAC. Maybe the current market sentiment about SPACS made them use a reverse merger instead? Maybe they didn’t want to be owned. It’s not like SPACs are investing. They are buying and acquiring. Here’s a good article.
Harvard Business Review
Posted on 2/25/21 at 6:53 am to Johnpettigrew
quote:
They did not choose a SPAC. Maybe the current market sentiment about SPACS made them use a reverse merger instead? Maybe they didn’t want to be owned. It’s not like SPACs are investing. They are buying and acquiring. Here’s a good article.
A few thoughts. Reputation wise, a reverse merger into effectively an OTC shell sentiment wise is on the low end of the spectrum. As I noted, you and I can buy an OTC shell for as low as $50K if we wanted to.
Two - the vast vast majority of SPACS do not take control of the Company. In the old days, yeah more SPACS took controlling stake, now is it 95% the other way. SPACS are like a private equity investment of 5-40% of the Company.
Three - Where the logic is challenged is that in this 'reverse merger', if we believe their press release, they only acquired the common shares of the guy who passed. Thus, 80% of TSNP common equity stayed with outside parties... so they effectively gave away 80% of common equity for the privilege of listing on the OTC? Yes, per the press release, the HUMBL folks were issued preferred to take control - but we do not know the terms of the preferred because they have not filed the agreement (in violation of OTC rules by the way). We don't have the agreement; we don't know the terms; we don't know the financials; hell in terms of the basic warrants to FWDLY there are four different assertions to the terms depending on what press release or tweet you believe.
So how I frame the question for the bulls is this. If Humble is worth several billion dollars, why did they give away 80% of common equity (which has a market cap in the billions based off current trading), to merger with an OTC shell. What possibly could be a rationale reason for that? I am sorry, but I am perplexed to see what a rationale reason could be.
And I am perplexed to be honest how passionately people defend a deal that they have not seen one source piece of information on. No deal, no financials, no patents, no agreements, no equity structure, no transparency... nothing. Yet people have raging passion. It is a little disturbing IMO.
That being said, I hope to be wrong and I hope you guys rock it
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)