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.
Fair enough.
My guess as to why 160 completed kiosks are sitting in inventory.
This is just a guess, but I can't think of any other reason that VEND would have failed to deliver most, if not all, of the 160 kiosks that are sitting on the loading dock.
It costs $3,000 per kiosk to deliver and install, which comes to $480,000 that VEND may not have to spare. So, until it can find the change in the couch cushions that it would take to get those puppies out in the field, there they sit.
There is one other possibility, but it's even worse. There may be 160 kiosks sitting at Flex, but maybe Flex has its hand out demanding payment before it will release them.
Any way you cut it, the only explanations for having potential revenues sitting in inventory are very bad news.
Please remember to send 30 of them to Phil Mickelson!
I must be reading a different press release!
The one I see tells us the following:
- There is not enough cash.
- Flex is no longer manufacturing kiosks.
- No one else is yet manufacturing kiosks.
- They are having to talk to other potential manufacturers because the Stoelting deal isn't complete (and that suggests that there's big problems with that deal).
- Revenues for the full fiscal year are only projected to be what they had originally projected for the last 6 months of 2019.
- Most of that revenue will be recognized in the final 6 months of the fiscal year, meaning there's not much revenue to be recognized in the next six months (and the projections beyond that may just be wishful thinking).
- "proper financing and quality control must be achieved before ramping volume". Translation - We don't have the cash to begin production, and we're experiencing quality issues (again).
- Cups per kiosk per day haven't improved, even with all the bugs supposedly worked out, new supposedly better locations and the summer months. At less than 9 cups per kiosk per day, there won't be much basis to excite potential franchisees.
Is there no good news at all? Well, I wouldn't say that, but much of the rest is just blather, fluff and puff. I would say that having 160 kiosks in inventory ready for delivery is good, but that leaves me scratching my head - Why aren't those already out there generating revenues and royalties? What's the hold up?
The situation is critical, and - I'll say it again - the end is nigh.
Cups per kiosk! My obsession (well, one of them)!
So, hitting 800,000 cups as of September 13, 2019 means that the average daily sales per kiosk during the roughly 3 month period since yogurt number 500,000 hit the scene have been running at less than 9 cups per day.
That figure remains consistent with the numbers that have been suggested by past performance indicators.
While there remain a lucky few at the top, that means that your typical R&I franchisee is not getting much of a return on his investment, regardless of the useful life of a kiosk (and that still doesn't sound like it's long enough to produce much cash flow after the payback point is reached).
Franky, my impression is that you are quibbling over the meaning of "spokesperson", but I really can't tell since you won't be more explicit in your position.
So, here's my explanation. Please tell me why he's not a spokesperson if the two VEND statements I have quoted below are accurate.
Here's a definition of spokesperson:
A spokesperson is someone who speaks or is engaged to speak on behalf of someone. It can be a company, a product, a political party or any important group of people.
1. From the 10-K (emphasis supplied) -
"Five -time Major Golf Champion Phil Mickelson and his career-long business manager and business partner Steve Loy entered into a business relationship with Reis & Irvy’s to become franchisees in San Diego, and to cooperate in certain promotional activities for the promotion of the Company, including the Reis & Irvy’s brand in exchange for a reduced purchase price for their robots."
2. From the franchise disclosure document (emphasis supplied) -
“Mr. Mickelson, through press releases, has agreed to speak to his experience in dealing with us...”
Franky, remember how you claimed that Phil Mickelson wasn't a spokesperson but the company said he was?
How do you reconcile those statements?
Thanks, Franky, but you were going to "reference franchise law for us", and you still haven't.
Franky!!!! Got facts? School's in session!
How about answering those questions? It's OK if you don't like the answers, we'll provide them if you don't.
Crickets.
No August results (although we can assume the worst).
10-K not due until Monday, September 30.
Franchise disclosure documents won't be filed until after the 10-K.
Unless some miraculous financing occurs, it looks like we won't be hearing much from the VEND guys as often as we had in the past. I had enjoyed the frequency of the press releases, but no news and less transparency seems to be the new normal.
Oh, well, it was fun while it lasted.
Meanwhile, how about those guys at Chowbotics? They know how to raise capital!
Any idea who got laid off? I do.
Looks like among the dearly departed are franchise relationship types and repair/troubleshooting folks.
Given the number of machine problems and the increasing size of the installed base, a guy who handles kiosk problems would seem sorta essential, no?
Looks like PR and investor relations support has declined, so maybe they were included in the purge?
Any idea, folks?
35 transactions a day, eh?
Not up to Robotinvasion standards, but then what is? (Only his imagination is my guess).
So, what do you think the kpi’s per kiosk are these days? I am looking forward to the data in the 10-k and franchise docs.
I think that the answers to any of those examples you cited are likely to be material information.
Under current circumstances, with VEND hanging by a thread, their most recent monthly performance, progress in the establishment of a new supplier relationship and potential deal with a large chain are all pretty important. If I knew any of those things, I probably wouldn't buy or sell unless and until the information had been shared with the public.
Your argument is in contradiction of the message you convey in your earlier post.
In your post yesterday, you state that:
"One significant point to me is that there are many investors holding hundreds of thousands of shares that are close to the company and actually know what is going on and none of them are selling shares."
Your statement implies that it would be wise to be a shareholder because those in the know aren't selling. The only reason that their conduct would be significant is if the information that they know (and that others don't know) is material. If their decision not to sell their VEND shares is being made only in reliance on immaterial information, their decision not to sell is no more significant than my decision not to buy. The value of their information is no greater than mine.
So, which is it? Should we treat their decision as significant because they know something worth knowing (in other words, material), or should their decision be treated as the equivalent of anyone else's decision?
By the way, there's a simple explanation for why those insiders aren't selling. If they are in possession of material inside information, they may be prohibited from selling.
Just ask Jeff Skilling of Enron fame what happens if you sell your shares while the ship is sinking.
Yes, it could be cost-cutting, but if results were good, my guess is that they would release the news.
There is no Q4 quarterly report, at least not as far as the SEC is concerned - it's always done through the 10-K annual report, but it's due by September 28. They filed late last year, which was costly, since it prevented them from renewing their franchise registrations and thereby put a hold on franchise sales activities until they could file the 10-K and update the franchise registrations. Not a mistake a cash-poor franchise business can afford to repeat.
August results must have been great. No news as of September 9.
Which should come in the form of a report for the month of August, a 10-K and an updated franchise disclosure report.
It's a little later than usual for the monthly report, and if it's not provided tomorrow, that would be a very bad sign.
If it is provided tomorrow, maybe you can update your graph showing VEND's progress to date relative to their predictions. Should be interesting.
Thanks. I had not seen that they had removed the password protection from the investor deck.
It is, unfortunately, pretty stale by now, but I see that they had been talking about popcorn for a while (it was news to me, since no one saw fit to share the rumor). They seem to have dropped the mini-R&I kiosk from their pipeline.
Pretty funny that they repeat the goal of an uplisting. That alone should scare off any potential investor, since it's such an unrealistic goal.
I see, too, that they were still clinging to the hope that they would transition to Stoelting before the end of the quarter. We know that's not likely to happen, since there would be a plethora of press releases if anything had been put in place. Meanwhile, the precipitous drop in deliveries from Flex suggests there's something very wrong with that already awful relationship.
There's a sucker (or franchisee) born every minute, but I don't see them raising any capital from a true debt offering - no cash, no liquidity, no cash flow, no worthwhile assets for collateral. Of course, as someone mentioned on this board months ago, there's always the toxic convert option!
As for equity, your math (on very generous assumptions regarding both share price and necessary discount) demonstrates how implausible that is. With more realistic assumptions, it is next to impossible to imagine. If someone was willing to pump that much equity into this, they should be looking at negotiating an outright purchase or at least a controlling interest.
I'm looking forward to the release of the August results, the 10-K and the updated franchise disclosure documents, all of which we should be seeing shortly. There's a lot more bad news to come out.
Hmmm, I smell something....
-Yates steps down as CEO.
- Board is expanded to include more independent directors.
- Investment bank with particular expertise in workouts, insolvencies and turnarounds is hired.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next proposal you see involves a liquidation/reorganization of the company with Yates and friends picking up some of the pieces.
I could be wrong, but I don't see anything an investment bank can do to help them raise capital under current circumstances, so I don't believe for a minute that that's the end game here.
Franky, remember?
“My agenda is just to help with facts.”
Well, how about some facts, like how come you say Nick wasn’t lying when he said Mickelson wasn’t a spokesperson?
Or why it’s not a lie to claim that there are 6 (or 7) flavors?
Or why you can tell me about a confidential agreement without explaining why the company’s public statements contradict what you say?
School is in session, Franky. Enlighten us!
Stills waiting, Franky.
You are going to reference franchise law for us?
Hi, Franky, glad to see you have returned.
How about answering my questions with all those facts that you promised?
I have some thoughts -
- It's not going to be popped to order, since that would take 2 minutes or more just to pop, not to mention all those slow-moving robot maneuvers.
- If it's not popped to order, it runs the risk of old stale popcorn sitting there awaiting the next customer. Unless sales are fairly frequent or predictable, I don't see how you solve for the freshness problem.
Maybe there's some secret process where you take the pre-popped corn and reheat it, adding flavors or toppings at the time of order?
I await the big reveal.
I have seen him mention the possibility along with a number of others (pizza, popcorn, sushi).
Personally, when he talks about kiosks for sushi, I cringe. Good luck with that!
I thought it was noteworthy that he brought it up, suggesting that it's closer to launch. I also thought it was noteworthy that he didn't tout Print Mates.
Gourmet popcorn, anyone?
Seems as though VEND's next kiosk will dispense popcorn. What do you think about that?
Good question.
I don’t know whether he is an insider, but he certainly wants us to think he is.
Most of his posts smell like BS, but he has posted a few (very few) things that suggest he is privy to some insider info.
When he claims to be an insider (which is without a doubt) and he claims that NickYates44 is not Nick Yates, I think it’s problematic. If you don’t, that’s fine with me.
I guess I will just chalk it up as one more big hit on his credibility.
I understand your reasoning in deleting both posts, but that doesn’t change the fact that we have a Nic Yates posting and a purported insider saying that it’s not really Nick Yates.
If someone is impersonating Nick Yates, that’s a problem.
If someone who should know is falsely claiming that it’s not Nick Yates, that’s a problem.
Will the real Nick Yates please stand up?
Alvie, you’re entitled to exercise your discretion in deleting posts, but aren’t you concerned that (a) someone has been posting on this board as Nick Yates, and (b) someone else who claims to have insider status claims that the purported Nick Yates is not in fact the real Nick Yates?
I think it’s appropriate to try to get to the bottom of that. Intentionally impersonating the CEO/Chairman of a public company on a message board strikes me as a serious matter.
I agree.
Nick, as chairman, is still in position to call all the major decisions. In fact, this change could turn out to be not much more than window-dressing, much like in previous situations where Nick was trying to avoid disclosure of his financial misdeeds in the franchise disclosure documents.
Does anyone believe that Mr. Budman was free to act independently of Nick?
I also agree that anything that develops in the future is attributable to Messr. Yates, whether he wants to take credit for it or not.
Finally, who is going to want the CEO position in VEND? It's going to take a lot of work to find a worthwhile candidate who might actually want the job under present circumstances.
The mystery that remains is why they took these steps in the first place. There's more to the story.
"I'll reference franchise law for you..."
Still waiting on that, Franky. Please enlighten us with the facts.
By the way, congratulations, Nick, on finally dropping the 6 flavors / 7 flavors nonsense from the Reis & Irvy's web site. The wording is awkward - "various different flavors" - but at least it's truthful.
Let's see whether you can maintain that newfound truthfulness in your press releases and other public statements.
I don't need to see the actual document, Franky.
You see, Nick and the kind folks at VEND have already told me what it provides:
1. From the 10-K (emphasis supplied) -
"Five -time Major Golf Champion Phil Mickelson and his career-long business manager and business partner Steve Loy entered into a business relationship with Reis & Irvy’s to become franchisees in San Diego, and to cooperate in certain promotional activities for the promotion of the Company, including the Reis & Irvy’s brand in exchange for a reduced purchase price for their robots."
2. From the franchise disclosure document -
“Mr. Mickelson, through press releases, has agreed to speak to his experience in dealing with us...”
Are you suggesting that I should not rely upon the company's statements that I have quoted above? Or are you trying to argue that the above-described agreements do not constitute agreeing to be a spokesperson? Feel free to make yourself clear.
As a lawyer might put it in a cross-examination of Nick Yates: Which was it? Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Remember how you said your purpose here was to provide facts? I just provided you some facts, but you have only characterized a document that you claim to be privy to that you know I can't see, and your characterization is in conflict with the company's statements. Since you are affiliated with the company to the extent necessary to provide yourself access to the confidential agreement with Mickelson, you are in a position to tell us what wriggle room is available to argue that Phil is not a spokesperson, but you haven't (because you can't reasonably defend that position).
This also makes me wonder why you and Nick find it so important to provide some distance for Phil from VEND. He must have asked you, as a dear friend, not to associate him with VEND any more than you already regrettably have.
So, Franky, what do you think?
Is a public figure who is granted equity and allowed to purchase 30 kiosks at $1,000 apiece, and who agrees to press releases discussing his experience a spokesperson?
Or are you as prone to fine-tuning your statements like Nick?
Maybe you should be holding class on the art of issuing statements that while technically true are nevertheless misleading?
You are splitting hairs, Nick, as you are so accustomed. (6 flavors? 7 flavors?)
In your own words:
“Mr. Mickelson, through press releases, has agreed to speak to his experience in dealing with us...”
Now, in theory, that could be a less than positive experience, but come on, he’s a guy you practically gave kiosks to for free, and granted a bunch of equity. Is he going to diss you?
Come on, he’s a spokesperson, and that’s why your lawyers had you disclose it.
Your favorite sort of statement is the misleading half-truth.
The franchise disclosure documents aren’t hard to find.
Only three states post them publicly, but California is one.
And, to be clear, Mr. Claridge flatly stated that the company has no such disclosure obligation, and Mr. Claridge was wrong.
If he wants to weasel out of his condescending remarks to Sonata, so be it. That won’t change the fact that he was wrong and it won’t make his condescending tone any more acceptable.
It seems that he can’t handle the truth.
Ok, Frankydude, here’s where you went wrong.
You claimed “The company is not bound legally to disclose which franchisees stay in or out of the system...”.
Since you offered, I will take you up on it. Please cite the franchise laws that support your position.
Since the franchise disclosure documents routinely list franchisees who have left the system, it’s curious that you believe it’s not required. I suppose you think VEND just volunteers that information even though it doesn’t disclose current kiosk kpi’s.
Let me know why they do this voluntarily and why the franchise laws exempt them from the disclosure obligations.
Just the facts, if you please.
Good luck with that.
Very clever reworking of your initial absolutely false statement.
You claimed there was no obligation.
Sorry, you are wrong, but please continue to prevaricate, as it’s quite amusing.
Your argument was that there was no legal obligation to disclose.
I take it that you have conceded the point, but you’d like to pretend that you haven’t.
You seem to have missed the point of my post, Alvie.
I was responding to Franky’s incorrect claim that the company has no disclosure obligations with respect to the matters under discussion. It does.
As to your point, doesitreallymatter’s post reflects my attitude as well - while there may not have been a legal termination of some of the contracts with Mickelson, anything that remains is either impractical and therefore irrelevant or, if still alive, not advantageous to VEND. If you think that any aspect of the arrangements could remain both alive and beneficial, I would like to hear your explanation, but I really can’t see any way that could be the case.
When I have the time, I will provide you with examples of false and misleading statements made by (or on behalf of) Nick.
In the meantime, if you are impatient, you can just read my previous posts for examples.
I can’t tell whether you need a source for the “6 flavors” bs that he spews, but you could start with the website and roughly half the press releases, and you still haven’t refuted the false and / or misleading nature of those statements.