I would agree on many levels, and despite what some may state or believe differently, I've been a pretty firm critic of many things that they have addressed, and they continue to, the big one being the path many are following (which possibly benefits this situation) of over priced acquisitions when they are in the position to simply expand through licensing processes.
Currently about 12 open permits (CA/NV/NJ) at a cost (app fee's) of probably $150k+. Any one of those easily falling into the $20-$30MM range (NJ, WeHo, Fremont), at a time when many moves are taking place with value in the $25-$50MM range for even dormant licenses. I believe I heard GLD also had things in on WeHo and NV last process as well.
I think something many are missing as well is regarding cultivation, Schiavone and NuLeaf are solid and if one throws quality into the equation, the upside just increases. I have firsthand knowledge of many of the operations of the recent wave of acquisitions, and despite the prices paid, they are truly inferior quality producers, so.....this is another level of value being overlooked, and as also addressed recently, vertically integrates both fully in NV and CA.
I also think the explanations for poor Q were the only valid and reasonable ones, and nothing I haven't seen or heard before...so, that doesn't necessarily concern me.
TRTC and NJ go back awhile, they were addressing political on the ground as far back as I believe before January. (In NJ as well as hosting in NV), but NJ's going to be a tougher one, but the bright side being they are already (NJ) expecting 2 more RFA's at this moment, so, the same can easily be resubmitted in each process. NJ process is extremely competitive, with the majority of applicants being larger multi state operators. (I know about 6 going after NJ).
Lot of stuff in the pipeline for both the next 30+/- days let alone rest of the Q. TRTC a little more, and I'd really like to see them clear the pipelines as far as future/potential merger value and the cumulative holdings. Fremont seems the most likely/easiest, with WeHo and NJ being rather tough ones. The WeHo specifically a 50/50 due to how much it strayed from a traditional process.(City looking for an "idea/vision" as opposed to simple scored criteria of traditional processes).
Also, regarding any "losses", we have just seem other companies with similar cumulative holdings posting as high as $80MM (single Q loss) while they also acquire for extremely unreasonable values, so....(Yet they're market favorites lol)
I've experienced firsthand a lot of these matters...ie: Pursuing and developing multiple operations while investors complain about "so much going out and nothing coming in". Yeah, that's what happens when one builds out locations...You have to pay for them to get them open and break even lol....(TRTC I think last count was 21+ open builds, locations, and permit apps, yet people shouting where's the profitability? lol....It's nonsense.. lol)
I don't see them as doing too bad....and more and more they've been addressing all my complaints (I always have a few more lol, but more and more those are becoming things which can be easily changed with very little effort and expense, etc...
This Q should be quite significant for both if they can clear/lighten current pipeline a little...
It's too personal to be business.
