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.
No, they have generated $13m from 2010 to 2013 from machine sales, consulting services in helping people get dispensary licenses, and then building their dispensaries for them. They appear to be the only company in the sector actually turning a profit. This us all available on their website and also their recent Form 10 filing.
Right you are. Who needs inventory control anyway? I'm sure the Hawaian government will inventory control using a pen and paper instead of seed to sale software. Thanks for the brilliant analysis here. Wow... I mean WoW!
As far as shorting goes... People are finding shares and that is evidenced by the following:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/MDBX/short-sales
Did a little research on redchip after you posted about them being tied to scams.... Apparently the president is pretty outspoken on the subject...
http://www.redchip.com/blog/index.php/redchippresident/pump-and-dump-is-a-pejorative-term-and-rightly-so/#.UuDBoXg77CR
“Pump and Dump” Is a Pejorative Term and Rightly So
Posted on July 24, 2009 by RedChip Blogger
Occasionally, we find a critic of RedChip who in a fury of madness mistakenly throws us into the “pump and dump” category of investor relations firms. The problem with these folks is they set themselves up as an authority though they have little understanding of the small-cap IR business or of RedChip Companies. Their arguments are seeded with logical fallacies, namely, the fallacy of generalization and the fallacy of bifurcation.
We, of course, forgive their childlike logic for they know not what they say. But, as they say in First Amendment circles, bad speech must be balanced with more speech and better speech. I am writing today for all small-cap investor relations firms who operate with integrity and professionalism.
“Pump and dump” is a term used to describe a sudden rise in a stock followed by a sudden fall. This term is typically associated with smaller-cap stocks, micro-caps and nano-caps. The SEC has done a good job of exposing and educating investors on penny stock pump-and-dump scams. These scams are typically executed by Wall Street scam artists — boiler room operators who represent or create “startup” businesses and claim to have a breakthrough technology.
The IR promoters are typically compensated by a third party in free-trading shares and sometimes work with a syndicate of brokers who also are compensated illegally with free-trading shares. The promoters may use email blasts, cell-phone messages, telemarketing, and slick printed mail pieces that make incrediably bullish claims about the company. The common denominator is that the company they are pumping and dumping is a story stock. Fundamentals don’t exist and management is a farce. As the stock moves up, the promoter sells. The “CEO” of these companies is a willing participant in these scams and benefits handsomely. An excellent book on this subject is Gary Weiss’ Born to Steal: When the Mafia Hit Wall Street.
The second common denominator is a lack of transparency and full disclosure both in regards to the company they are promoting (most do not have audited financials) and the compensation the promoter or broker is receiving.
The small- and micro-cap sector is a tough part of the market. It is fraught with failed companies and talented entrepreneurs with poor management skills who make bad decisions and, in the process, the stock is slaughtered and the company fails.
And, yes, RedChip, like every fund investor relations firm, manager, stock broker and investment bank on Wall Street, has made mistakes in misjudging companies and their prospect for success and their management teams. If the brightest analysts in the country can be fooled by the Enron’s of the world, then we and our peers on occasion can as well. Indeed, we operate in the most volatile sector and sometimes “the best-laid plans of mice and men go awry.”
But to associate RedChip and firms who service smaller-cap companies with “pump and dump” enterprises is not only dishonest and potentially libelous but plain wrong.
Consider the following about RedChip Companies:
16 years in business
Offices in Orlando, Paris; Qingdao, China
RedChip has both an independent research and a company sponsored research division.
RC discovered Starbucks in 1992 and was first to put independent research on them.
15 CFAs/MBAs currently write research for RedChip.
RedChip’s history includes Research Coverage on Daktronics, Winnebago, Marketwatch.com and many other blue chip companies.
The RedChip Review has been praised in Barron’s, Forbes, CFO.com and other financial publications.
RedChip’s company-sponsored research analysts’ forecasts are rated as accurate as “Institutional” or traditional analysts.
Independent researcher, Dr. William Buslepp, found “no significant difference in forecast accuracy between RedChip Research and forecasts issued by traditional analysts.” (Paying for Coverage: Conflict of Interest Among Company-Sponsored Research Firms, 2008 doctoral dissertation; p. 51)
RedChip’s 2007 NY conference was the only small-cap conference ever covered by CNBC.
In 2008, RC was the first small-cap IR firm to ring the NASDAQ Closing bell on national television.
Fund managers from the largest small-cap funds in the world attend RedChip Conferences, subscribe to RedChip research, and hold positions in many RedChip client stocks.
Stock brokers and investment bankers representing over 50 firms, including tier-1 broker-dealers, attend RedChip conferences, hold positions in many RC stocks and subscribe to RedChip Research.
RedChip has the most comprehensive platform of research and IR services in the industry: Research, Conferences, Retail and Institutional Road Shows, Radio, Webcasting, Virtual Conferences, Podcasts, Shareholder Intelligence, Internet Marketing and Web 2.0/Social Media Marketing.
RedChip’s client lineup includes profitable, fast-growing companies representing a variety of sectors as well as a select few promising startups and healthcare companies:
ZAGG (Consumer products)
CEU: NYSE Amex (Online education, vocational and English language training in China)
LLFH (Coal, China)
WEMU (Solar products manufacturing, China)
LPIH (Fuel wholesaler and distributor, China)
RXII: Nasdaq (Biotech; RNAi therapeutics; company founded by Nobel laureate)
NG: NYSE Amex (gold)
QGP: NYSE Amex (Health Information Technology)
DPDM (Internet technology; CEO is the largest producer of children’s films for Nickelodeon)
As a final thought, the small-cap IR industry needs a written code of ethics and an organization that upholds the highest ethical standards and edcuates its members on the importance of honesty, accountability and professionalism while insuring that its critics have a truer understanding of the small-cap IR our business.
Respectfully yours,
Dave Gentry
President
RedChip Companies, Inc.
e> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
RedChip Money Report
Small Caps by Sectors
Basic Materials (34)
Biotechnology (9)
Sure... Patents don't mean squat. Thank you for your analysis. We are all so much better off for it. LMAO!!!
Reviewed your various posts about corporate structure, compliance, implicating principals in wrong-doing, etc. and assuming the alleged compliance issues are correct, one thing stands out as being a variable that makes it all nonsensical.
By your own admission, a shell company can cure shell status by filing a Form 10 and reporting for a year. Well, if management at MDBX knew there was a compliance issue, why would they have pulled their Form 10 almost a year ago when that document would have mandatorily gone effective 60 days from filing, and all the company would have had to do is file Q's during this time through April of this year to cure the alleged shell issue?
So, the whole "Bruce and Vinny are willfully scamming the public" mantra actually makes no sense.
Further, this whole issue is a matter of opinion and interpretation. Obviously, there are a lot of brokers and attorneys that feel differently about this company's status or you wouldn't see any shares trading at all. A 5 year old armed with an I-pad with Internet access could pull up the filings you reference.
Now here's where it gets really interesting. The company has filed Form 10 information back in April of last year. Assuming they follow through with again filing their Form 10 and keeping it effective, they can just as easily file Q's since that Form 10 initially went in last April and thereby demonstrating reporting status for a year. During the whole Form 10, S-1, Form 10 embarrassment, one by-product is that the company has had to comply with reporting requirements as if they were fully reporting this whole time. Just my .02. I might be wrong but whatever. As I've said before here the stock is priced way too high but that's certainly not the company's fault that they have sparked investor interest.
The SEC and FINRA have willful violators out there I'm sure they are expending resources on. By all indications this company has done right by its clients and shareholders. Everyone else can go pound sand and cry about this company's success all they want.
I don't think any of the shareholders mind getting double their shares since the price has quadrupled since that announcement. LOL
Ouch! MDBX and AVTC shorts got scorched. Ha ha ha!
Great interview! They talked about the incredible stock price for half the interview and didn't mock it once! I got a kick out of one of the analyst second guessing himself for buying Medbox and selling too low!!! Classic!
What an amazing time for the company. Kudos Medbox. Haters can go pound sand.
Well, they are going to be an SEC filer soon (according to them) so I guess the proof is in the pudding or the subsequent filings in this instance. Let's see if they make good! I'm enjoying the show ;)
A) old news as that info was posted here 8 months ago. The company apparently found out about their auditor having issues as a result of an IHUB post, which is embarrassing to say the least as they alluded to not knowing about it in subsequent press releases where they talk about engaging another auditor. If you look at their press releases prior to the audit, they discuss engaging an auditor in mid 2012. The Tim Q SEC issue popped up in Dec. 2012. The company was blindsided by that it appears.
B) are we to throw out audited financials from an auditor that is still PCAOB registered? Baby with the bath water scenario
C) The auditor in question is still PCAOB registered. https://rasr.pcaobus.org/Firms/FirmSummaryPublic.aspx?FirmID=40CB82F5D3529FC928E9742CE1EBB28A
D) Medbox went through a voluntary audit to demonstrate transparency and financial accountability. Their stock spiked with voluntary information from the company being posted and any steps that were taken thereafter are simply for additional transparency. Bottom line... Any sleazy company wouldn't have gone to the trouble.
E) see A-D
They turned a profit 3 out of their first 4 years of operation. You are obviously not looking at their financials. They are at OTC markets at the end of their quarterly reports under the filings tab. The one year they didn't was 2012 and apparently it had to do with Arizona delaying implementation of their marijuana dispensary program because their Governor filed a legal challenge.
After so many statements that this stock would be sub $1 by April, then again in June, then clearly when all the restricted stock that the company sold at a discount was able to be cleared in November and December. Yet, we still sit at over $18 per share here as we start 2014. Way to go Medbox, and way to go everyone that made money in the markets by believing in this company's vision.
"A drop in stock price from $100 to $18 would be considered a collapse any way you look at it..." stated by 236 - circa 2013
Hey Alan, you do realize that if the company issued shares for services, that would throw the math off to the degree you are alluding to here. for example, if they issued 200k shares at $5 and the balance were issued for services. Plausible explanation and that was the one time during the entire interview you had Vincent scratching his head. In any event, I thought Vincent was amazing! That kid is sharp as a razor.
Nicely done! Go Medbox!!
Ok, let's try this another way since simple concepts are lost on some.
Approx 15 million common shares and 3 million preferred that convert to another 15 million common shares.
That equals about 30 million shares.
The company officers announced that they would not be giving a dividend to the preferred shareholder class. They further announced an updated share count within their press release. Specifically:
"The total issued and outstanding shares of common stock and preferred stock on a fully diluted basis, which was 29,500,750 will then be 44,500,750."
Now, the Q3 quarterly report the company filed (https://www.otciq.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=113733)
Lists the total amount of shares in affiliate hands at 26.6m shares. That means that 3m shares are in non-affiliate hands. After the 100% common dividend that number of shares becomes 6m while the total number of shares issued stays at about 45 million resulting in a 3.5% equity transfer from affiliate to non affiliate common shareholders. The math is 3m divided by 30m pre dividend which equals 10% non-affiliated common shareholder equity as opposed to 6m divided by 45m post dividend which equals 13.5% non-affiliated common shareholder equity. The difference is about 3.5% which translates into an equity shift of millions of dollars.
Does this suffice or do you need a pie chart or graph of some sort?
Yes, I refute everything you said.
Specifically when you state that the common shareholders were not transferred equity. Simple math really. Try and follow:
Per their recently filed registration statement:
89.5% of the company's stock was in control of the company's officers
After the common 100% dividend the control becomes 86%. That 3.5% translates into millions of dollars worth of equity being transferred to non-affiliated common shareholders.
Capiche?
Furthermore, I've always stated I love the company but have never advocated for buying the stock in any of my posts. It's a risky buy. I just love watching short interests squirm. It makes my day!
Incorrect. If you take the time and do the math, by the company not issuing a dividend to their preferred class, the common non affiliated shareholder has more voting power and millions of dollars in increased equity. Then the company gave its shareholders an extra perk by not saturating the float with additional shares through an S-1 registration. Post announcement the shares have maintained their value. Good news for the company and it's shareholders.
Further, it's the record date and not the declaration date people should be concerned with. The declaration date is the proposed date of FINRA approval. All I know is shorts are gonna have a rude awakening soon. Trader G, you seem like a nice guy, but I can assure you, things are not bueno. Any shorts as of the record date you will be responsible for double after the payment date. If you don't believe me go ask IB.
It's fairly simple really. Common sense dictates that anyone publicly stating anything negative about Medbox that hasn't been aggrieved by the company directly, has a short interest. If they state otherwise they are lying. Or else, why spend the time?
Tens of thousands of MDBX shares getting bought and covered over and over again from shorters from the outer recesses of BFE Canada for all we know. Lol
For people that have low income aspirations, it seems like they are making very slight profits daily.
So now let's discuss what happened to the short interests a few days ago when the company doubled the common.... That means all short interest shares they need to cover were doubled as well! Whoops!!! That means everyone that was short got called in and took a huge bath. Ouch!
Happy Holidays!!
Better yet. Shareholders should join Vinnie's lawsuit against Boyd and the crew of illegal shorters that spread fear-filled propaganda for financial gain.
Fortunately the only people crying foul are shorters and not shareholders. I think the company will live with that.
Regardless of the ex-date the market determines what the share price will be. Medbox announced the split along with the news that they are not going to be registering 3.5 million shares to be added to the float, and giving more equity and voting power to the common shareholder. It appears that as a result the market has something very positive to hang its hat on. That might be the reason we are seeing a 10% gain post announcement. If you are saying that sometime in January the price will be halved from a prior trading day as a matter of fact, I wholeheartedly disagree. Especially since the preferred in this instance were not doubled along with the common. It's not a conventional split at all.
You would be correct if the stock was sitting at $5 post split announcement. BUT IT'S NOT!
Nonsense. More voting power and equity to the common shareholder. Stock price went up on the news that they are not going to be registering shares for sale. MDBX came out smelling like a rose and the shareholders are appreciative, I'm sure.
Ouch! Shorts are feeling the burn this morning!!
Interesting. So you called investor relations to get what kind of insight? Everything you need to know about the company is in their registration statement filed with the SEC. That can be found here in case you've been lost at sea for the last few months.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=9608734
Meanwhile people here are talking about stock collapses. Day traders and pp shareholders that have held stock for a year have made an absolute mint investing in this company. What everyone is witnessing is profit taking by savvy investors. Here here to that!
That is so cool. Medbox was mentioned by name as a clue on Jeopardy!
Fascinating story. You bought shares and can't sell them after a year? Why are you the only one? Just bad luck??
Phew!! That's a relief. We all thought the 1 post per day average was in jeopardy. Glad to see the slack being picked up with 3 posts back-to-back-to-back reminding us all once again what value these statistics bring to the table. Thanks for the dedication to this board.
How very insightful. Thank you for your comments. Everyone here is better off because of them. How tight is the noose on a scale of 1 to 10? Let me guess... VERY TIGHT!!!!!
Happy to report they successfully filed a Massachusetts dispensary application for my investment group. All as promised, expert consulting, and a well presented application. Thank you Medbox!!!
It's called revenue recognition folks. It's also called getting through SEC comments regarding the company's registration statement, which is pending. MDBX explained in detail in a press release why $1m in revenue originally booked in 2012 would find its way to Q12013 after their audit was complete. Now they have taken it a step further and tightened up their revenue recognition policies, presumably based on SEC comments. All the signs of a maturing company. Congrats to MDBX for having a $5m YTD!! Bravo
With that being said, as I've said countless times before, it's a risky buy. Like the company, just not at these levels.
What a bunch of malarkey! Nonsense
Yeah, ok! A state would care that a guy that invented technology that helps track medical marijuana transaction taxation on a state level more efficiently has a prior record for non-jail and non-violent crimes. I highly doubt that... None of that matters. No one can deny the guy is doing extremely well. Kudos to him!
Meanwhile, the story on Roddy Boyd is way more interesting....
“…..In a DeepCapture.com article titled “Roddy Boyd Sucks It Like He’s Paying the Rent,” Byrne describes Boyd, an investigative financial journalist who has worked for Fortune Magazine and the New York Post, as a “mop-and-spooge bucket boy.” He went on to accuse Boyd and other reporters of giving “reportorial lotion-jobs” to Rocker Partners.
Byrne, who has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Cambridge University, defended the explicit language by saying the journalists don’t deserve intellectual disputes.
“When I’m dealing with serious people, I’ll write serious stuff that I think stands up to anybody. But when I have to deal with what I think are basically criminal riff raff, I can’t give them the dignity of treating them like a serious opponent, so I slip into Hunter S. Thompson mode,” Byrne said, referencing the personal journalist and known drug abuser who committed suicide.
Byrne and Bagley maintain they aren’t targeting all journalists. They claim that a select few who have personal relationships with their sources don’t do their homework and “poison” the press, creating a media storm of undue negative publicity for a company in the sights of a short seller. To remedy this, Byrne said financial reporters need to learn the basics of accounting or go to independent accountants who can help reporters sift through the numbers.
“There’s no shortcut to understanding the underlying issues, and if you’re not willing to put in the time to do that, you’re leaving yourself open to being a pawn to manipulators,” Byrne said. “I feel about weak journalism the way I feel about a pedophile priest.”….”
http://sabew.org/2011/05/ceo-battles-business-journalists/
Byrne has a degree in Philosophy from Cambridge and is very well educated and savvy but, when he wrote this article, he says that he wrote it to the lowest common denominator… Roddy Boyd.
http://www.deepcapture.com/roddy-boyd-sucks-it-like-hes-paying-the-rent/
The Roddy Boyd plot thickens. Looks like he and his Hedge Fund Founder Daddy were in some hot water for stealing money. Wow, I mean Wowwww! The real fun comes next when Vinny litigates against Boyd and also drags in all the "sources" that have short ties. This is really getting interesting!!!
63 USLW 2197, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,391
McMAHAN SECURITIES CO. L.P.; D. Bruce McMahan; John R.
Gordon; Saul Schwartzman; McMahan & Company,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
FORUM CAPITAL MARKETS L.P.; Founders Financial Group L.P.;
Forest Investment Management L.P.; Michael A. Boyd, Jr.;
Michael A. Boyd, Inc.; Michael A. Boyd Pension; Terence M.
York; John F. Lepore; Philip R. Platek; Michael F.
McNulty; Walter K. McNulty; Steven B. Jones; Thomas Shea,
Jr.; Edward Okine; Elizabeth Uhl; Arthur S. Raskin;
Martha L. Raskin; Robert Blumenthal; Joyce Blumenthal;
Alan D. Bunims; Roderick S. Boyd; Judith E. Doris,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 1595, Docket 94-7087.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued March 7, 1994.
Decided Sept. 9, 1994.
Benjamin H. Green, Stamford, CT (Taggart D. Adams, Paul F. McCurdy, Kelley Drye & Warren, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.
Deborah E. Lans, New York City (Fred H. Perkins, David A. Piedra, Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, New York City, Christopher Rooney, Kevin C. Doyle, Carmody & Torrance, New Haven, CT, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before: WALKER and JACOBS, Circuit Judges, and CARMAN, Judge. *
WALKER, Circuit Judge:
Wow, that couldn't be farther from the truth. Why am I not surprised?
Oh joy! The $21's are here :)
Re: Canada, what part of the machines will not be made available for direct access to consumers is so hard to comprehend? It's a method to store and dispense medicine internally. Nuff said!
Misreported. The complaint states that Client 1 wanted out so Medbox found Client 2 to take over. Client 1 was bought out but then refused to sign over the asset to Client 2. The complaint doesn't talk about revenue splits to Medbox. That's a load of garbàgè.
Sure. I personally visited 3 client locations in CA and AZ before deciding to be a client in MA. Over 100 machines in dispensaries nationwide. They are in existence and the technology is impressive. Period... Anything else?
Wow... OTC Markets system crash. No OTCs are trading right now.
Yeah, I understand the frustration. People were waiting for that hit-piece to sink the company. The company was lucky the piece was poorly written and by a tabloid writer linked to short scams. Hallelujah... Go MDBX