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.
Never seen that before? Guess you never bothered to read the filings
Fully diluted is in the filings it is over 700 million
They recently even just created two more classes of preferred shares the G and the n
Look at the B shares. Lol
Lol...you really need to read the financials. The preferred shares (insiders) have the voting power here. Common shareholders have less than 50% of the votes, the majority of the votes lies with the insiders shareholders.
When you get 51 percent of the outstanding shares into one group of like-minded shareholders----YOU HAVE THE VOICE and the FLOOR.
Currently DP does not have that----BUT,, following the very unpopular RS, he will have-----
Totally incorrect. The voting power is all with the insider's preferred shares, all the common shareholders combined have less votes than DP himself let alone combined with all the other insiders. The common shareholders have absolutely no voice here.
Same as the total misrepresentation of preferred shares
What misrepresentation of the preferred shares? It is straight from the SEC fillings that the Preferred B's do not reverse split with the commons nor is there a ratio adjustment. I can post the exact clause for you if you desire. It is in the S3.
I so wish there was a like button on Ihub.
The only people who would benefit from a buyout would be the insiders as anyone buying them out would only need to buy the preferred shares and wouldn't touch the common stock as control of the company lies with the preferred shares, or they will just buy assets leaving TRTC an empty shell.
Since we can only write off COGS for taxes, lets make that as high as possible and operating expenses as little as possible. I sure hope they have the receipts to show that that they actually paid what they said they paid as COGS and not that they are claiming what really should be under SG&A as COGS if the IRS questions it and sends MR Auditor.
He said margins will get better when Blum Oak goes for profit, but what does whether or not they operate as a for profit or not for profit have to do with how much they pay for the marijuana from its suppliers? Will the wholesale price they pay to their suppliers magically get lowered when CA allow for profit operations or will they raise the price they are selling it? Did he also state they are shifting what should be listed under SG&A expenses and shifting it to COGS because the IRS only allows MJ business to write off COGS for tax purposes. If that is what they are doing, expect a knock on the door from the IRS charging them with tax evasion.
So, I wonder if any of these suppliers they sell product for on consignment that they are overpaying for happen to be themselves under another business entity?
But But But COGS is sooo high because CA is a not for profit state. It is true because DP said so.
The amended 8K is a new development as it included finacial statemebts for Blum Oakland which were never seen before and fyi, they do not justify the 20 million worth of shares and how bad a deal for the common shareholders it actually was.
"Derek is not doing anything out of the ordinary for the OTC"
That right there is reason to run for the hills. Typical OTC insider enrichment scheme.
Also, they never mentioned which old owners it is that is the group contracted to run the disoensary for a 50% cut.. The mysterious group called BOSS investments that owned 50% of the dispensary or DP and Marty Kauffman, I mean his wife, Salwa Ibrahim or a combination.
Basis of his argument is the filings and the way their deals are structured, incestuous business transactions and the was the preferred v common shares are structured. All the signs are there, you just need to open your eyes a look.
I love the part of how they had to give the old owners the 50% of the profits to manage the dispensary part as if a boat load of preferred shares wasn't incentive enough. LOL
That is just ludicrous. Not the .05 part but the less of an impact part.
Regardless, neither to post I responded to nor my post that you responded to was about whether or not legalization will pass in Nevada but rather which would benefit TRTC more, legalization in CA or Nevada.
You obviously never been to Vegas
Please forgive the typos or incorrect word wording as I was using talk to text while driving
If this was a tax return then yes I guess we can talk about tax loopholes but this an audited financial statements reporting income and expenses and supposedly it was audited by the best the state. So if these guys are the best most credible independent auditors comma they are going to report everything as accurate as it's their ass on the line. They will verify what is reported as Revenue what was the actual Revenue. Revenue is. Revenue is the actual money that came in from the sales of product. They will also accurately record what was the cost of the product they sold which is the under the cost of goods sold category. They will also accurately record what is considered operating expenses or sg&a expenses. The question was why is the cost of goods sold so high and Derek's lame response was because we are not profit. So he is trying to say the reason that 13 million dollars worth of sales they had to buy it for 11 million dollars from suppliers. Now remember cost of goods sold only talks about the cost of the product they sold not the operating expenses like computers rent salaries excetera. So by saying it's because they are enough of a profit does that mean that you're paying too much to buy the product or are they selling it at a lower cost and that when they go for profit will they be paying less for the product or will they be selling it at a higher price because that is the only way to increase the profit margin between revenue and cost of goods sold? The whole answer Regarding why is cost of goods sold so high was total b*******
IMO Nevada recreational legalization is the big prize as LV is a huge international tourist destination and it would open up a huge customer base. CA recreational for Blum Oakland is not that big a deal as Oakland is not a huge tourist destination and all the locals who want to use MJ already are under the current medical laws as it is bery easy in CA to get a medical card, from what I understand.
That isn't a loophole, claiming higher expenses that don't exist is fraud....
So you are saying they are filing fraudulent tax forms by putting all expenses in COGS?
It was a bullshit answer....
I didn't listen to the interview yet, did he try to blame to COGS being high due to operating as a nonprofit? What the hell does non profit status have to do with how much it costs to produce/aquire the products to sell?
He got fined for lying on government applications about being involved with Terra Tech and for lying about having outside brokerage accounts hiding it fromFINRA and he lost his broker's license about it. But yeah he is trustworthy
So Nahass lied to FINRA and his former employer about his involvement with TRTC, what makes you think he won't lie to you?
http://m.stocklaw.com/Securities-Fraud-Blog/2016/January/Michael-Nahass-Fined-Suspended-for-Undisclosed-O.aspx
So what will change when it goes for profit as opposed to now as a not for profit that will increase profit margins? Will they somehow be able to reduce production costs to lower costs of goods sold? Will they raise the price they sell the MJ to increase % markup, or will they somehow reduce SG&A expenses? Which will it be as that are the only ways they can increase net profit or loss? And how does operating as a for profit or not for profit affect any of this?
I believe that once it goes for profit, SG&A expenses (managements salaries etc) will be increased significantly as they won't be restricted like they currently are under the not for profit senario.
If 20% markup is bad, what do you call the less than 10% markup on EG produce?
So BOTH are the MAJORITY shareholder. LOL
What part of penny stock CEO'S say one thing and then end up doing something else. They are all full of shit. There will be a R/S in TRTC'S future and it won't be to uplist.
Blum isn't making a profit. 500k loss last year.
The selling of shares is the only thing keeping the company afloat.
Won't be any different. Will still have the same cost of goods sold. Same expenses. Same management contracts and consulting and exorbitant rent paid to insiders that eat away at any profit to put them in the negative. Same story as every subsidiary, only the name and pump has changed.
I don't bluff my friend, only the facts. It was attached to the fillings on SEC.Gov
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1451512/000147793216010738/0001477932-16-010738-index.htm
Here, read it and weep.
13 million in revenues for 2015, 11 milion in cost of goods sold, 2.2 milion in SG&A expenses, 636k in taxes for a net loss of about 600k.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1451512/000147793216010738/trtc_ex991.htm
and here is Q1's filling, a net loss of $132k.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1451512/000147793216010738/trtc_ex992.htm
Oh soooo wrong. I guess you didn't see the audited financials for Blum they filed with yesterday's 8K. It shos they lost money.
You see that Blum deal? 20 million dollars in shares for what? A business that loses money?