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.
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.
The legacy of Red Giant and Benny et al. remains:
A breach of fiduciary duty occurs when the fiduciary acts in the interest of themselves, rather than the best interest of the employer or principal. A fiduciary’s actions must be free of conflicts of interest and self-dealing. As a fiduciary, you can’t use the principal for your own personal advantage. In other words, you can’t use corporate property or corporate assets for your own personal gain, nor can you take advantage of a corporate opportunity for your own personal pursuits. Depending on the actions of the fiduciary, fraud may also be an issue, but this is typically a more complex legal matter.
A breach of fiduciary duty complaint is much easier to prove than fraud as there’s no need to prove fraudulent or criminal intent. To win a breach of fiduciary duty complaint, the claimant only has to prove that you were in a fiduciary position and you breached that duty for your own personal gain.
Lol, you must be new here. The evidence to date supports the theory of Redg being a misleading scam story. Until new evidence is presented, I'll support it as being the most likely situation
Anyone else see DOLLR4LOT listed as the exchange for REDG? If so, what the heck is that?
You would be wise to take everything Benny says with a grain of salt and only believe concrete facts that can be verified. Not sure how long you been following this but these videos and wishful thinking have amounted to nothing in the past years. The dishonesty, repeated failures on so many levels, and details surrounding past events (including outside of REDG) are quite alarming to say the least.
He must not be very proud of Benchpress Studios or Active Media, considering he didn't include them in his resume during that interview.
More dirt...This press release came out 3/13/13
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/red-giant-makes-active-multi-180239292.html
However, according to the Florida Dept. of State records, Active Media was an inactive entity during this time (and now as well, since REDG has been milked dry), and was not reinstated until 2014. Hmmmmmmmmm, looks like a scam, smells like a scam, must be a scam. Sure feels like we got scammed. Benny bent us over, no lube
http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=OfficerRegisteredAgentName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=POWELLBENNY%20L030000159670&aggregateId=flal-l03000015967-692dc461-f106-43d0-973c-8f2ef965e22a&searchTerm=powell%20benny&listNameOrder=POWELLBENNY%20L020000331900
Speaking of that, check this out. How can someone have such a pattern of inactive entities in a short period of time like this. Something doesn't make sense. Dude has to be a fraud.
http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResults/OfficerRegisteredAgentName/powell%20benny/Page1
Also of interest, In late the 90's he was the CEO of a company named Benchpress Studios that went bankrupt. Looks like he just rehashed some of the same old failed plans to sway investors with REDG. This failed deal with Hasbro is eerily similar to REDG's failure and raises serious red flags.
https://www.yojoe.com/archive/unproduced/benchpress.shtml
agreed
You would be surprised. This is showing signs of a solid run back up to near .08 or .10 in the near term and possibly further into next year, as long as .035 holds. I just bought 140k and even if price fails short term but news comes out, hold on.
Flippers are the only ones who will make money here. Any gains will quickly correct back down where this stock belongs. History is my witness. This will need a miracle to trade higher than trips (probably .0003) without drastic changes in transparency, ethics, and management. It's not wise to invest in something already risky when all prospects of revenue/growth are stunted by insider hands in the cookie jar. After they pillage the revenue and then completely botch customer experiences there is no room for others to make money. Flip away and come back to say thanks to all who told you so when you see the light and REDG is still running only on the fumes of hope later down the road. Looks like that could be in the near future.
Agreed. Good luck on getting the concept across though.
Unfortunately I think your right and in the opinion of most who have been exposed for long enough to the nonsense that has occurred with REDG.
Buddy, take the blind fold away for a moment and answer this. Why would REDG need to go through Benny's company to access another company in China to get printing services? Why not just allow REDG to pay the Chinese company for its services with all of the money from the toxic debt? If you or Benny can provide a legitimate reason then go for it. I see no other reason than to be able to conceal skimming off money in the process. There is no need to compare prices because Benny will not release personal and business financial information that would show that he is paying less for the services than what he is charging back to REDG. Also, where can you find a publicly available, detailed expense report that would show all of the transactions with Active Media? Good luck but you will probably need a subpoena.
The answer to your "how else were they to pay" question is not hard. How do other entrepreneurs and startups raise money when they do not have the option of selling shares that can be disposed of in the stock market. They come up with a business plan that is realistic and can be presented to possible sources of funds. If the plan is perceived as unrealistic then naturally this will severely limit these possible sources, and this could likely be a reason why REDG went public. You also risk your own capital if you really believe in the plan. They have signed up strategic partnerships, which is great, but none of them have opened their wallets other than to put money in.
You claim non sequitur but incorrectly. Where is the disconnect between the premises and the conclusion? There isn't one. The conclusion clearly followed from the information presented and not from some other observation. I'll be the first to tell you that I may be wrong, but the evidence is to the contrary.
Haven't been here for a while but just wanted to drop in some perspective. I wouldn't say Benny is stupid by no means, but he definitely does not have the skill set required to be the CEO of a publicly traded company. He is not an effective leader, and I'm not trying to be condescending, but did you watch any of the shareholder video conferences? If you did then I shouldn't need to say much more about that. Couple the leadership issue with the absolute failures to date, and you can see why many experience the urge to speak up about some possible changes for the better. You can't expect him to keep chasing pie in the sky dreams and hope for success without a solid plan with realistic goals and effective leadership. If you expect the company to make any sort of comeback under the current circumstances, then statistically you're probably better off buying a lottery ticket.
Benny surely has some skills that could benefit the company, and it honestly looks like he uses them to benefit only himself and his cronies. His skills appear to be in creating fiction and illusions. Not a bad skill set for someone in this industry, but when one looks hard enough and follows the money then a few things start to look real suspect. Information about revenues, the structure of the ownership of the intellectual properties, and the way he and his cronies receive compensation for the services of their respective companies are all in need of careful scrutinizing. For this venture to appear legitimate I would expect the risk to be spread out for all stakeholders - not just shareholders. The current arrangement allows for shareholders' money to be used to prop up the companies of the insiders. It's a cash cow as long as he is able to keep the illusions going, and the insiders win whether the plans fail or not.
One thing is for sure; Even before his involvement with a publicly traded company, Benny has a history of raising then mismanaging funds and portraying misleading information (not to beat a dead horse, but Japan Needs Heroes controversy is worthy of investigation). Whether this is intentional or not is open to debate without all relevant information available, but it seems that he went from one funding source to another to access easy money and attempted to maintain the illusions of how the funds would be used.
Purely speculative on this and the timeline adds up, but I believe he attempted to remove the risk of using his and his cronies' money, and instead he used the kickstarter money to fund REDG going public. I think if he ever intended on fulfilling his pledge to the kickstarter backers then he hoped to be able to make even more money off investors to then fund the kickstarter project and pocket the extra, like a modified bait and switch.
Are you referring to the bid and ask sizes when you talk about the volume?
I saw that. But I would imagine it would be better for us if people watched the free. I saw 0 ads
I watched the entire movie through the Hulu plus app and not a single advertisement was played. This is what I was referring to yesterday when someone was mentioning that hulu only had so many subscribers. We are better off if people watch the free version and not through the hulu plus paid subscription, as there is not any advertising there.
That's not accurate. You are leaving out hulu, inception, and any other vested interests. Redg will definitely not make the full $50 cpm for the advertising.
Thanks. After seeing that I guess we can just hope his definition of large is the same as everyone else's. I would be surprised if Redg keeps 25% of the money after Hulu and inception take their cut.
Thanks for the update captain obvious
Agreed. None of his posts contribute to any sort of productive discussion.
From Redg Facebook:
"Also to clarify, the CPM is based on each commercial. In a feature there can be roughly 8 commercial breaks, each averaging 2.5 commercials per break. So that means up to 20 commercials for each person that watches the movie once on average. Each person who clicks must watch one commercial segment before the movie even plays, so at a minimum 1-3 ads will be played, which is revenue for us."
If I watch this on my Xbox one hulu plus app then I will likely not see as many commercials as someone watching for free on hulu.com. Unless this is not going to be available to hulu plus users (they pay for less advertising) then I would imagine the payout will be different based on how much advertising the end user actually views.
If Redg is getting the cut Benny is claiming, then we will be better off if non-subscribers watch than subscribers. If you have a subscription then you will see less advertising. I would imagine that affects the cpm
Thanks bud. Time will tell.
I don't see it. Was it a private message?
That's my point. It's vague because all the insiders are involved but it's not clear who actually owns the IP. Everyone was focused on the full CPM and leaving out inception and any other possible vested interests. It's still speculation as far as I'm concerned until I see magika is a trademarked property of redg.
It's not very clear or I wouldn't have posted it. I'm not saying they don't, I'm saying I would like to see proof. I remember looking at redgs website and seeing all those movies on there that were not owned by Redg.
It's pretty clear when marvel owns something. You can see marvel studios in the credit block and TM symbols showing they own it. Provide something that states Magika is a registered trademark or whatever of redg. I don't think you can. This is why I doubt they own it.
Should've been brought up in the investor video.
The article doesn't give one bit of information regarding redg owning magika.
That would be great but that's assuming inception's payout is 10% and that redg holds 100% of the rights to the IP. I don't believe they do. What role did Redg play in making this movie happen?
U 2 dooz b ackin lik sum fooz on diz ho. On a serious note, this guy had lost all credibility with those uneducated posts butchering the English language.
So here is my understanding. Hulu collects the original ~$50 CPM money. They take their 30% and then pay inception media. Inception then takes their unknown percentage of the money out and pays (I would assume) Redg. How much then does Redg have to pay out to any other hands in the cookie jar? At any rate, by this point you can see how redg could be at the bottom of the totem pole for any cpm payout
I saw that release. To me it still seems like Redg doesn't completely own the IP rights to Magika, so why would they be in a position to make the money as the content provider? What role did Redg play in making this happen? Their website does not say anywhere that Magika is a copyright protected trademark of redg. However, it does say at the bottom " All properties are TM & (C) 2013 Red Giant Entertainment, Inc., their subsidiaries or RESPECTIVE CREATORS. All rights reserved." They should clarify the ownership because it looks like something they are just trying to put their name on for fluff.
Please provide evidence that Redg is the content provider. Nothing I've seen seems to support this claim.
I understand Hulu's cut, but Redg is not the content provider. I can guarantee you that Redg will not take anywhere near 70% of the revenue from Hulu.
Some of you just don't get it even after several attempts. If I go on my account right now and either sell my shares or put in a buy order you will see CSTI. Why? Because I use scottrade. Quit posting this delusional market maker crap. It makes you look ignorant.