Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
So is that why the company just turned their first profit ever ? Because they're selling products at a loss ? ROTFLOL .....
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-polkadot-box-reports-sharply-130700049.html
"Problem is, they're selling products at a loss."
Yeah, I've been watching. The numbers have exploded after having tanked after I first wrote about them. LOL. I think for sure we'll hear something from the company about January numbers.
Good grief ALL companies have a G&A line -- ROFL!!!!!
The fact that there is an allocation of overheard in the cost of sales is absolutely irrelevant to the automatic existence of a G&A line also. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the term "allocation" of overhead. It doesn't mean all of the overhead. It means an allocation of some of the overheard.
More importantly, there are virtually always with any business some COGS that consist of fixed costs. A chef's $15 per hour wage, for example, is a COGS sold whether he makes 2 dishes or 200 dishes in an hour.
Back to square one I guess.
But you continue to go with G & A being allocated back to COGS and I'll stick with the financial statements of the company, which clearly (and properly) identify overhead / G & A as an indirect operating expense.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=GPDB&id=129730
As for your insight that after significant losses the company would generate a profit over a 2 week period beginning 1/1/15, I can only say congratulations. Well, that and "too funny".
"Costs of goods made by the business include material, labor, and allocated overhead."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_goods_sold
The funniest part of this discussion is I saw increased gross profits coming from a mile away because I actually understand allocation of overhead.
And what do we see? See last PR. ;)
LOL, yeah allocated overhead is the overhead related DIRECTLY to the production and distribution of the revenues generated. It's not G & A. It also is not remaining inventory "The costs of those goods not yet sold are deferred as costs of inventory until the inventory is sold or written down in value."
And the part of the definition you missed, "Costs include all costs of purchase, costs of conversion and other costs incurred in bringing the inventories to their present location and condition. "
Once again, not G & A overhead.
And finally, just to bring it home, "Cost of goods purchased for resale includes purchase price as well as all other costs of acquisitions,[5] excluding any discounts.
Additional costs may include freight paid to acquire the goods, customs duties, sales or use taxes not recoverable paid on materials used, and fees paid for acquisition. For financial reporting purposes such period costs as purchasing department, warehouse, and other operating expenses are usually not treated as part of inventory or cost of goods sold. "
Here's a website perhaps more to your liking that makes it crystal clear:
"Costs of goods made by the business include material, labor, and allocated overhead."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_goods_sold
Good grief, go a whopping one line next:
"As mentioned above, in order for a manufacturer's financial statements to be in compliance with GAAP, a portion of the manufacturing overhead must be allocated to each item produced. Even when allocations are arbitrary and inaccurate, the totals of the amounts reported as inventory and cost of goods sold on the financial statements can still be reasonably correct."
Too funny Raw. You should probably read the entries you quote before quoting them. You're not looking at cost of goods sold, but allocation of overhead, which is most definitely NOT a part of COGS. Understand now?
From your expert site, "Cost of goods sold is the cost of the merchandise that was sold to customers. The cost of goods sold is reported on the income statement when the sales revenues of the goods sold are reported.
A retailer's cost of goods sold includes the cost from its supplier plus any additional costs necessary to get the merchandise into inventory and ready for sale. For example, let's assume that Corner Shelf Bookstore purchases a college textbook from a publisher. If Corner Shelf's cost from the publisher is $80 for the textbook plus $5 in shipping costs, Corner Shelf reports $85 in its Inventory account until the book is sold. When the book is sold, the $85 is removed from inventory and is reported as cost of goods sold on the income statement."
You sarcastically said, in a present-tense tone, "Go GPDB. You lose on every sale, but you make up for it in volume."
Obviously you were quite wrong.
LOL, except we weren't discussing today's PR, we were discussing their last filing with negative gross margins.
As for "allocation of overhead" in COGS? Sorry, no.
"The direct costs attributable to the production of the goods sold by a company. This amount includes the cost of the materials used in creating the good along with the direct labor costs used to produce the good. It excludes indirect expenses such as distribution costs and sales force costs."
www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cogs.asp
Hope that helps.
Good Update on Revenues I found the Youtube Video on the new Product watch it if you want to know what the Apptheyl product is and does, I found it really helpful.
I've read a lot of hilarious comments here on IHUB, but yours take the cake. I can only wish you better luck.
Oh Joe, "if"? ROFLMAO.
But do take an accounting course when you start community college. There are really only about a dozen numbers on the balance sheet and income statement that are important. Even you'll be able to learn them.
Hint: Revenue and COGS are 2 of them.
I'll let you get back to running all those successful businesses now.
PS - "the principal's office"? Really. I had you pegged for HS, but now I'm thinking it must be junior high. Too funny.
If I was ever going to pump a company, it would be this one, as their sales are exploding, but increasing sales isn't good, right ? LOL. Don't skip school today. You'll be in the principal's office again.
Too funny. So far the pumping biz has been spectacularly unsuccessful. But keep trying.
It might help to have a basic understanding of accounting though.
Start with "direct costs" and "indirect costs". You'll see why direct costs exceeding sales is such a bad thing.
Economies of scale apply primarily to indirect costs.
Kid, I run three very successful businesses, so I suggest you start with a lemonade stand and work your way up. It won't take you long to figure out how money is made and yes, it's EVERY company's goal to increase sales. There's a certain point where you will no longer lose money as your costs fall under your revenues. Okay, now grab your lunch pale and head off to school. I'll be happy to help you with more later ......
"so you now realize they are losing money on every sale, but think that increasing sales is the solution?"
ROFLMAO, so you now realize they are losing money on every sale, but think that increasing sales is the solution? Too funny.
Oh I've had the gist for months now and certainly don't try to pull off a spin-job on the facts. It's funny how all of a sudden you no longer claim products are sold for less than they're bought. Couldn't let you get away with that one as insane of an idea as it is and completely unbelievable. Nice try though. Looking forward to your next hoax. Is it April 1st yet ?
You've finally got the gist, but to state it more accurately from an accounting standpoint,
Last quarter GPDB spent $1.40 in DIRECT costs for every $1 in sales it generated. They also spent another $2.03 for ever $1 in sales in overhead (indirect) costs.
Profit "this month"? Are they going to start reporting monthly results now? That seems unlikely.
When the company finally turns a profit for the first time ever this month, I'll make sure to remind you that the company buys a health bar at the wholesale cost of $1.00 and then sells it for .50 cents. ROTFLOL !!
LOL, yeah, I guess you couldn't find it in the filing either.
Too funny.
If only you could short pinkies.
Do your homework and educate yourself. Much better than spending time spinning a story that doesn't exist. Better yet, short the stock ..... please ......
"Funny, no mention of "uplist".
Funny, no mention of "uplist". Just "until we see positive cash flow".
Ouch.
Company believes it will need to raise approximately and (sic) additional $5,000,000 to continue operations to a point where it may achieve positive cash flow through the expansion of facilities and sales
Some more warnings from the latest filing:
"The Company began generating revenues in 2011 and generated losses totaling of $1,281,986 for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and has accumulated losses of $26,590,214 through September 30, 2014."
The company has planned to do a capital raise all along coinciding with an uplist. What they didn't plan for at the time of the filing was the dramatic increase in sales that are now being seen. I would advise shorting the stock if you think it's going down, as it will be my pleasure in watching you cover above $2.50
So you believe the company is also lying when it states in the latest filing, "The Company believes it will need to raise approximately and additional $5,000,000 to continue operations to a point where it may achieve positive cash flow through the expansion of facilities and sales" ?
No offense, but based on your struggle with the financial statements, I think I'll go with the company's projection, rather than yours.
$5 million is a lot to raise for a company with $12 million in net liabilities already, most of it a current liability. That's accounting for "currently due or due within a year".
No spin-job will prevent the accelerated momentum in sales and profitability. There won't be a capital raise unless simultaneously done with an uplisting and that would allow for completion of the Living Growing Produce Center, the business model I like, much more so than the current platform that is really taking off. Sales numbers are exploding and I expect to hear more about this shortly. Better grab a position, as the stock will explode if the company reports a profitable month with accelerating sales.
So now you're once again back to hilariously claiming that products are sold for MORE than the Cost of Goods Sold and the company is lying in their filing? I guess it depends which way the wind is blowing to see what you'll say next. Say .... how about the "Company believes it will need to raise approximately and additional $5,000,000 to continue operations to a point where it may achieve positive cash flow through the expansion of facilities and sales"
Yeah, looks like the time to sell !!
So now you're once again back to hilariously claiming that products are sold for less than the price they're paid for ? I guess it depends which way the wind is blowing to see what you'll say next. Say .... how about the first-ever profitable month this month ? Yeah, that's the time to sell ..... NOT !!
ROFLMAO. OK, yeah, selling at below cost is a great business model. Go GPDB. You lose on every sale, but you make up for it in volume.
TOO funny.
Wow, well glad we finally agree that your claim that the company sells merchandise for less than their wholesale cost was hogwash. And ..... the company looks to finally turn its first monthly profit ever this month. Good times ahead after retooling the business model and putting past losses (although small) behind them.
LOL, I give up alright. You just don't learn, but that's OK, I think anyone that looks at the filing and can do basic math will see the problem.
OTCMarkets even makes it easy:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/GPDB/financials#
Period Ending Sep 30, 2014 Jun 30, 2014 Mar 31, 2014 Dec 31, 2013
Total Revenue__ 315 498 395 497
Cost of Revenue 443 377 462 640
Gross Profit__ (128) 120 (67) (144)
Operating Income (769) (656) (1,249) (1,542)
Best of luck with your "investment".
So now that you've been busted in yet another lie, you revert back to the same game plan as yesterday ? Give it up and move along.
You're going to have to understand what your reading if you want to make this work. Picking out random words as "explanations" isn't cutting it.
"LOL, and since we've now proven that in fact inventory is NOT part of COGS". Remaining inventory is subtracted (another word for "deducted"), hence it "is NOT part of COGS", as you keep misstating.
Inventory build up is NOT part of the Sales - COGS equation. It is NOT the reason that the company spends more for $1 of sales than $1 in direct costs and most importantly, spending more than $1 for every $1 of sale is a BAD thing.
And when you do as GPDB did and spend $1.40 in DIRECT COSTS for every $1 in sales you were able to generate, then spend another $2 in overhead for every $1 in sales, it's REALLY BAD.
See, $3.40 in expense for every $1 in sales - not considered "good" by investors.
ROFLMAO.
Dude, take an accounting class and spare yourself further embarrassment ......
"There are several ways to calculate COGS but one of the more basic ways is to start with the beginning inventory for the period and add the total amount of purchases made during the period, and then deducting the ending inventory."
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cogs.asp
"LOL, and since we've now proven that in fact inventory is NOT part of COGS"
LOL, and since we've now proven that in fact inventory is NOT part of COGS
AND COGS is in fact "what you pay for the product you SOLD"
then the statement "when you pay more for your product than you can sell them for" is in fact TRUE for GPDB
and you can understand why it's struggling.
Q.E.D.
If you're still having trouble grasping this, go back to the financial filings, page F-2 and re-read it http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=GPDB&id=129730 :
Merchandise sales, net of discounts $ 304,108
COST OF SALES 443,085
See how COST OF SALES is bigger than Sales? That's what we mean when we say "they paid more for their product than they can sell them for".
REMEMBER (and this is very important) - what they "pay" for products isn't JUST the wholesale cost - it's all the DIRECT costs related to the sales generated.
Here you go, one more time, "The direct costs attributable to the production of the goods sold by a company. This amount includes the cost of the materials used in creating the good along with the direct labor costs used to produce the good. It excludes indirect expenses such as distribution costs and sales force costs."
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cogs.asp
Hope that clears it up for you.
You're welcome.
So I'll just remind you what you falsely stated that began this thread .....
"But when you pay more for your product than you can sell them for"
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=109722782
Yeah I know .... it sucks that people can go back and fact-check.
Guess it depends on what you call "cost". COGS, as we've been discussing, yeah, they're selling below, as you've seen now.
No, it's not a good thing
Oh I see, so now you're no longer claiming that GPDB sells merchandise for less than their cost. Glad we cleared that up.
ROFLMAO. You are too funny.
I'm glad at least you understand what COGS is and that it is unrelated to unsold inventory.
Now you just need to realize that when you spend $1.10 to generate $1 in revenue, increasing your sales isn't a good thing.
Really ? You don't remember what started this thread ? You trying to say the company sold their products for less than they paid for them ? How convenient to forget things, eh ? ....
"I'm not trying to tell people anything.
Oh so now you conveniently change your definition of cost of goods sold ? Good to know.
ROFLMAO. Why don't you post your accounting link to show that unsold inventory is a component of Cost of Goods SOLD.
I'm not trying to tell people anything. GPDB told you that when they factor in all the costs of selling a product, excluding overhead, they get less in revenue than it cost them. COGS DOES include shipping costs and other costs DIRECTLY RELATED TO GENERATING THE SALE.
You need to read an accounting book, because you just don't get the concept of COGS.
COGS has nothing to do with inventory ? What ? Dude, you can't apply your own method of accounting to what actually defines COGS and yes .... inventory most certainly has something to with the calculation, such as beginning inventory + inventory purchased - remaining inventory at the end of the period.
You're trying to tell people that GPDB buys a health bar at $1.00 and sells it for .50 cents when in fact they sell that health bar for $1.41
GPDB actually has a designated person that sets the price of the purchased merchandise. His name is Hunter Smith and his phone number is (877)-655-2368, so call him and get back with me. After that, this issue will be put to rest once and for all.
GPDB selling products for less than they bought them wholesale for ? ROTFLOL !!
I wasn't dropped on my head at birth, but I did live in a bubble for the first 3 weeks of my time on this planet... and kind to think about it, my mom said they used the forceps too aggressively when they yanked me out and my head had a funny shape for a while... Does that count?
Wee. $.96
let me know when we hit $1.40
TIA
Let's start off with the ACTUAL definition of COGS
http://www.accountingcoach.com/inventory-and-cost-of-goods-sold/explanation
"Cost of goods sold is the cost of the merchandise that was sold to customers. The cost of goods sold is reported on the income statement when the sales revenues of the goods sold are reported."
Note it's the cost of merchandise SOLD TO CUSTOMERS. Not the merchandise in inventory.
Then let's review that the financial statement filed by GPDB calls the item "COST OF SALES", not "COST OF SALES PLUS INVENTORY", not "COST OF MERCHANDISE".
Are ya clear now?
Followers
|
13
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
238
|
Created
|
02/16/12
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Green PolkaDot Box (GPDB) is America's premier online membership club for organic and natural foods at wholesale pricing. It is the only major online store that refuses to carry any products or ingredients containing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). GPDB leverages proprietary technology with its dynamic, interactive website and member relationship management software to provide a unique shopping and membership experience.
GPDB is an online based membership organization offering natural and organic foods. This family-owned and envisioned business is driven by a huge dream. Their mission is to provide everyone with access to organic, clean foods and products at the lowest possible price, thereby eliminating food deserts across the nation.
The Green PolkaDot Box ships all guaranteed GMO-free foods and products (including: organic produce, refrigerated and frozen foods and dry goods) directly to your front door in, of course, a green polkadot box. Their goal is to become the nation's largest and most influential buying club that can help educate the public about diet and disease, motivating grass-root changes that will ripple to affect both the food and health industry at large.
20,000 member families strong, with membership growing daily. GPDB the WHOLE FOODS, AMAZON and COSTCO for NON GMO / Organic Products online.
Visit: Greenpolkadotbox.com and sign up today for a trial membership http://www,greenpolkadotbox.com
FINANCIAL SUMMARY 2/20/13 EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
OTC: GPDB Rod A. Smith, C.E.O.
Market Cap: $ 23.4 M
Recent Price: $ 2.75 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Shares Outstanding: 10,909,331 Rod A. Smith, Chairman
Public Float: 130,000 William (Bill) Roberts, Director
Insiders Holding: 30 % Andrew Smith, Director
Revenue 2012: $ 2,328,114
Number of Employees 35
Fiscal Year End: December 31
Benefits of Membership Members can shop by their dietary requirements and choose shelf-stable packaged goods, frozen and fresh grocery items-including meats, fish, dairy, breads and freshly harvested organic produce. Orders are shipped FREE to the members' door at home or work with minimum orders. (See member submitted video below). GPDB is positioned to become the next online giant, expecting early stage growth that is comparable to that of COSTCO, AMAZON and other online niche merchandisers.
Market Size: Proven Trends Driven by consumer choice, the U.S. organic industry, alone, grew by 9.5% in 2011 to reach $31.5 billion in sales. (Source: the Organic Trade Association's (OTA's) 2012 Organic Industry Survey.) The growth in consumer demand in the organic food sector contrasts sharply with the less than one percent annual growth in the $630 billion U.S. traditional food market. Increasing popularity of "clean" foods and consistent growth, annually, in consumer purchases of those foods over the past decade suggest that demand will continue to increase, sharply.
56 million U.S. consumers' demand for healthy foods is expected to grow 18% annually, from $150 billion in 2013 to one-half trillion dollars, by the end of this decade. Online shopping is forecasted to exceed $300 billion annually by 2015. Membership Clubs like COSTCO, Sam's Club and BJ's have over 100 million adult members. GPDB is positioned at the center of these megatrends. There is no question that the marketplace will continue to embrace the ONLY online buying club for organic and non-GMO natural foods. GPDB has proven it can acquire membership rapidly from among the more than 16 million frequent consumers of organic and non-GMO natural foods.
Sales Results GPDB started shipping, nationally, on December 22nd, 2011. Registered membership is over 17,600 (over 3,000 paid). Sales in January 2013 were over $413,000, up by 45% over December 2012 sales. The average member spends $121 per order. But as the Company expands its product line sales are expected to reach approximately $2,000 per year, per member.
Marketing Strategy The company has formed many strategic marketing alliances with organizations such as: The Organic Consumers Association, Natural News, The Institute for Responsible Technology, The Hippocrates Institute, The National Health and Wellness Club, Natural Solutions Foundation, Mission Possible Group, MaryJane's Farm and others. These alliances, combined, have reach to more than 5 million consumers who are aligned with GPDB's mission. They are using their influence to promote their constituents to Green PolkaDot Box.
GPDB used a proprietary, word-of-mouth incentive marketing plan called PolkaDot Rewards to encourage members and affinity partners to promote and attract new membership, averaging monthly growth rate of 10% compounded. Effective marketing methods, including a social marketing platform Member Builder, direct-response advertising, and search engine optimization (SEO) are increasing website traffic and membership conversions accelerated growth rate. Company management is projecting the rate of growth in membership and sales to increase to more than 21% per month, compounded.
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
Green PolkaDot Box
629 E. Quality Drive #Suite 103
American Fork, UT 84003
Phone: 801-478-2500
Website: greenpolkadotbox.com
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |