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 key item in the Sept 2013 profit was a gain on settlement of debt. Debt paid by issuing $1,948,381 worth of shares. That is the likely scenario in Qtr 4 as well. Does not make sense to earn more operating profit than revenue in the quarter (revenue only $845,796 in the 4th qtr).
Must be an April Fools joke - numbers make no sense.
Beverage Sales Income loss
2012 $4,177,624 (1,076,503)
2013 $3,469,000 $1,587,000
Beverage company margins like Coke and Pepsi are 40 to 50%. Best case income before costs around $2,000,000. Rest of the costs are less than $500k? That is less than Mr. Iehabs annual compensation. What about royalty expense? Numbers do not make sense.
I guess we will just have to wait until the 21st.
$4.2 million revenue is 2012 revenue. the 2013 revenue dropped to 3,469,000. Maybe you should read the information a little more carefully before using your calculator.
Basic subtraction - do not need a calculator.
Revenues Net Income
Sep YTD 2013 2,623,204 576,336
2013 Fyr 3,469,000 1,587,000
Difference 845,796 1,010,664
Numbers do not make sense.
These preliminary numbers look funny. If they are real that means that 4th Qtr sales were $845,796 and 4th qtr income was $1,010,664. More net income than revenue? Not likely. How much is the royalty expense?
The unaudited 2013 numbers thru September make no sense when compared to Audited 2012 and 2011. Even 2012 audited royalty expense numbers look funny.
2013 sales $2,623,204
2013 Royalty expense ( 37,494)
2012 Sales $1,587,582
2012 Royalty expense ( 565,609)
2011 Sales $2,913,597
2012 Royalty expense (1,600,677)
Why is the royalty expense going away? Surely there is still a charge for the royalty trademark, right?
No wonder the numbers look surprising good - too good to be true.
SF, stop making things up. Where have I predicted $.0001 and $.0002?
The facts are historic losses and squandered cash.
SF, you also guaranteed back in January that "next plateau should be .0007 over the next two weeks and then .0012 week of valentines day, February 14."
Only thing guaranteed is that Mr. Iehab will squander your money and that there will be losses.
Losses
2007 $(4,801,900)
2008 (4,205,916)
2009 (4,342,761)
2010 (2,972,488)
2011 (7,043,410)
2012 (1,787,643)
Who controls the negotiation?
How do you control whether Playboy takes back the Rabbit Head trademark? Accumulate and then no future with no trademark?
Who has won the rights to use the Rabbit Head trademark? CIRC has done nothing with it. No future without it.
Right - only speculative value here. Everybody's waiting to see because if there is no settlement there is no value to this stock. If there is no continuance of the license there is no long term value for this company. That is why there is no movement - no real value - only speculative value.
Looks like we have some looking to sell some snake oil.
Out of nothing? Check your history. He has squandered millions of other people's money and what is there to show for it? $20 million plus in debt and a worthless stock price. He has driven this Company and stock price to almost nothing. That is what Mr. Iehab has done.
Mr. Iehab has to tread carefully because he is trying to keep the license from being terminated. He can't toot his own horn if he is worried that the license is going to be terminated.
Public companies always wait until earnings releases, not before, to provide "guidance" to the public. If there was official news on the lawsuit Mr. Iehab could disclose that, but obviously there is nothing official to report yet.
Source please.
It is an annual report which is not due until April 15th, but will be filed on April 20th. We shall see.
Confirmed - 6 years years of losses.
2007 (4,801,900)
2008 (4,205,916)
2009 (4,342,761)
2010 (2,972,488)
2011 (7,043,410)
2012 (1,787,643)
Sparkle.
The only fact is years of operating losses.
2007 $(4,801,900)
2008 (4,205,916)
2009 (4,342,761)
2010 (2,972,488)
2011 (7,043,410)
2012 (1,787,643)
shameful.
what is that supposed to mean?
losses
Losses Cash Used
2007 $(4,801,900) $(4,260,618)
2008 (4,205,916) (4,594,742)
2009 (4,342,761) (485,406)
2010 (2,972,488) (688,240)
2011 (7,043,410) (320,115)
2012 (1,787,643) (165,897)
...waiting for full year 2013 numbers in April.
Wrong. The reversal was reversing the judges' ruling to not bind over the defendants!
....reverse the ... ruling refusing to bind over defendants.
¶?20 In making our determination, we “[v]iew[ ] the evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in a light most favorable to the prosecution.” State v. Clark, 2001 UT 9, ¶?20, 20 P.3d 300. In this light, we hold that the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to meet the reasonable belief standard as to the three aggravating factors alleged. Although defendants' characterizations of the facts may also be plausibly inferred from the evidence, there are clearly factual issues that must be resolved at trial, and the facts do not negate the reasonable inferences presented by the State. See id. Therefore, we hold that the State has met its burden to support bind-over of defendants on the charge of aggravated kidnaping.
CONCLUSION
¶ ?21 We reverse the magistrate's ruling refusing to bind over defendants on the charge of aggravated kidnaping and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Nope. The company has 90 days to file the annual 10k, plus an additional 15 days if they are unable to file timely. They never have filed timely since they do not have the resources to do so.
Manufacturing list?
sever = separate, cut-off, break up, divided from each other.
Who wins when Playboy keeps the trademark licensing rights? This is likely to end up similar to the Starbucks Kraft dispute.
Cirtran gets cash - pays off its debts - there are no operations. Investors get nothing.
Like I said, complete deception. The Company advertises one thing, but the reality is different. Read the Cirtran SEC report for the "official" filing for 2011.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2011 and 2010
Sales and Cost of Sales
Net sales for the year ended December 31, 2011, totaled $3,064,438, ... Beverage distribution revenue decreased to $2,943,921 for the year ended December 31, 2011 ...
... continued deception and mis-management... the way Cirtran has always operated and will continue to operate ...
More deception. Cirtran had Net Sales in 2011 of $3,064,428 and had net losses of -$7,043,410 for that same year.
Circ might end up with some funds from the lawsuit, but Circ will likely not end up with the rabbit head rights, similar to the Starbucks / Kraft lawsuit. So then what happens to the "flagship" product? A restart? Good luck.
It means that there are no other products. Just check the recent filings - there are no sales of anything else.
Not going to happen. Playboy is not in the business of buying and running companies. Their licensing division licenses the trademark to earn royalties. Playboy will find a company with the resources to successfully produce and market the product. Cirtran will end up with no license agreement.
Cirtran couldn't market the drink successfully with one of the most recognized brands in the world. Little chance without it. Redbull, Monster, etc will smash 'em like a little bug.
Didn't you say you were keeping your opinion to yourself? How does Cirtran prevail with no license agreement?
Any potential award will not matter without the trademark license.
Why is Cirtran not recording royalty expense as in previous years? Not consistent with prior years - why? There should be some royalty expense if the license agreement is still officially in force. Until there is clarification on the royalty expense the earnings numbers cannot be trusted.
How is it that there is less royalty expense? No wonder there is more reported profit!
Beverage Sales Royalty Expense
2007 $ 0 $(93,104)
2008 1,500,713 (827,813)
2009 1,784,028 (745,121)
2010 7,712,492 (2,257,582)
2011 2,943,921 (2,142,765)
2012 4,177,624 (614,721)
2013ytd 2,623,204 (37,494)
Something smells ....
[img]Where is the royalty expense?
If Cirtran is selling under the playboy licensing agreement, why is there no royalty expense in 2013?
3 months ended 9/30 9 months ended 9/30
2013 2012 2013 2012
Net Sales $658,361 $653,127 $2,623,204 $1,587,582
COS (124,235) (68,226) (554,703) (315,190)
Royalty 0 (39,594) (37,494) (565,609)
G Profit $534,126 $545,307 $2,031,007 $706,783
Seems like the more the company sells the more the royalty expense would be, not less? Something is funny and not right.[/img]