Why drugman's assumptions and positive spin are likely wrong (reposted from the other site):
Yes, [QMCH] is a sub of QMC. None of [drugman's] assumptions are necessarily true however.
The value of the sub may or may not add value to the parent. Depends on the capital structure. As I have previously speculated, we now have a tangible reason to believe that they have been raising money by selling QMCH equity. That would dilute QMC's ownership of QMCH. For all we know, QMC only owns a tiny piece of QMCH now. For that matter, it's possible that QMCH preferred has claim on all the value of QMCH.
If QMCH ends up generating value and that value goes to QMCH shareholders, maybe only a little or none goes to QMC - so yes, raising money into QMCH rather than QMC might be hugely dilutive to QMC longs despite QMCH creating value. QMC would likely sell QD to QMCH or license the technology, but how much could they need? The demand would likely be miniscule compared to uses in things like TVs or lighting which seem completely dead.
More importantly, if they have been raising money into QMCH as the PowerPoint I linked to suggests, there would be nothing to stop them from registering QMCH shares but not QMC shares We may see an S-1, but it may be for QMCH - not QMC. Wouldn't that be a kick in the teeth.
If they do that, maybe they later reverse merge QMC into QMCH, we'd likely be diluted into oblivion, but maybe would could sell something.
