Thanks for the share @Access2020, after nearly 5 years of...

Thanks for the share @Access2020, after nearly 5 years of holding BCC it almost feels like the Zoleo story is finally getting to a point of logical conclusion.

Also the PAC analyst pointing out the unfairness of the JV split - absolutely vindicates all the posters that repeatedly raised concerns over the JV terms and setup being unprofitable for BCC, 14:1 profit split whilst sharing JV expenses and setup on a 50% participation basis, outrageous. What were they thinking!

My holding horizon is around 2026, hopefully by that time Beam is in a better shape than it is today (that jus not that hard, because Beam is at ATL).

The key point though that the analyst doesn't seem to address is: why would RP lose a revenue stream of ~$15M annual for a deal of 50-70M?

If they could defend that revenue and add to it by additional ~3.5M by a buyout/takeover bid of BCC, that likely will only cost around $30-40M. They get a much better deal that way than buying a measly 1M revenue from Beam's side of JV AND they then lose ability to source Zoleo devices at cost. As well as putting Beam in a prime position of leverage over RP if it wants to stop producing/supplying devices if it deems that to be unprofitable.

At least there are many options on the table, most are positive. Debt and equity arrangements is what will be the 'make or break' for BCC. Anytime a small cap like BCC raises x5 its MC in debt that usually presents a massive risk.

Also the assumption of continuation of annual revenue from RP territories may be not correct either, they (RP) haven't been just doing nothing either..so they well need to be suitably replaced to continue ongoing market support, and to support finding new customers.