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.
Dude, I'm long. I'm long a lot of shares, but there are a lot of recent things that need to be explained.
Personally, I think Snody is gone, as is the extractor work, and their R&D "division" along with their own products.
I think CAFS is done b/c MCIG won't have their own products to sell to CAFS and will be selling other people's products instead...something CAFS could do themselves without MCIG.
For real? Several times I've actually thought of doing the same thing...dropping by the office which Dror has stated any shareholder is welcome to do.
I've come around to what you are saying about the spin. It does sound like this is replacing their internal R&D.
Which begs the question, what is Snody doing? What has he done? Is he out now? Is he only on extractors?
Heh, welcome aboard.
I will say that I've often purchased more on strength but the price usually reverts back after a week or so. I wouldn't be surprised if it goes back to the 10s for a bit.
We might be in the middle of a short squeeze. If shares jump to 13 or 14 I'll probably offload a small amount in the hopes of buying back in if it drops.
I think we will find out soon regarding patent strength. They have 3 lawsuits against patent infringers that are moving along.
There is competition and there will be more and more, but mimedx has a good 3-4 year jump start and are now the incumbent. Everyone else still needs to wade through the reimbursement challenges that we have completed. Osiris is always touted as having a better product, but the sales tell a different story. I think hospitals like epifix because it works, it's cheap, and it has a 5 year shelf life and no cryo temp requirements. That's tough to beat.
Yes, I said I had misread it and asked for reference, which you kindly did.
I have repeatedly said MCIG exaggerates their PRs. I'm still highly skeptical that they can actually deliver on their promises.
That said, I think a lot of their 2015 PRs and the business strategy they are publicly presenting is quite good. What remains to be seen is whether or not they can deliver the revenue ... To date they have failed miserably.
I don't see your point about selling other mj products. How is that a bad decision? They may not be able to deliver on their intentions, but that's a separate issue. How is it better for them to do as you suggest and limit their sales to products from internal R&D?
She's an actor in Australia.
The yahoo boards are active, for whatever reason this board has been dead ... If love to see it come alive.
I've been in MDXG sine $0.75 and it has been one of my lifetime favorite investments. They are dominating in every sense. Great primary product with plenty of growth left domestically and international sales haven't even started.
The best part is that real growth has yet to come. They have many new products under development based on their technology.
High operating leverage means future revenues drop to bottom line.
Personally, I think they will be bought in 2016. While that may mean a nice quick return, I think it would be a better long term return if they remained solo and kept growing.
Are you against MCIG making money selling things others have developed?
I didn't read anything saying they are dropping their R&D, I did read their PR saying they realize there is a lot of good products out there that their new sales guy wants to sell.
Would you rather them limit their product line to only be items they've developed internally? Why isn't it smart business to diversify their product line and revenue sources so they aren't fully dependent on their own R&D?
They should have dumped shares ... It would have raised a lot more money then selling shares at $0.001 via converts.
Given that his pay is performance-based, I'm pretty sure Winnick cares if he's successful or not.
How can your bids be filled by a short exiting?
When something is marked as "on the sell side" it just means the seller was the the party taking liquidity and the buyer was the party providing liquidity with an order resting on the inside of the book.
I'm assuming since he said he was first in line he bought (he was/is at the top of the bid book). That, and he's been long as far back as I can remember.
Probably doesn't mean much. There's not a lot of volume there and the days to cover has actually gone down since average daily volume has increased.
I'm long, though skeptical and I agree that they exaggerate a lot, but it's entirely reasonable for them to grow the security service by expanding into new states. That's what businesses do ... expand. For as long as I've been following them, MCIG's strategy has been to grow into a diversified MJ holding company that offers any and all MJ services at a national scale. Everything they have done fits right into that vision. They've been very consistent in that regard.
Regarding VitaCig, I must have read the PR wrong. To me it looked like they were looking for companies to acquire ... not looking for VitaCig to be acquired by someone else. Can you point me to what made you think the latter?
I didn't ... I used $2 for easy math and said that figure was too high.
Sounds like you have accurate pricing info, I'm all ears. The more info we have, the better we can value the company.
Clearly you didn't or you would t have made the same point about $2 margin being too high.
Did you even read my full post?
Nice work!
Say they move 15k per week, at a margin of $2 per bottle that would add about $1.5 MM operating profit per year. Not GIGANTIC, but still a phenomenal start from which to grow.
$2 margin per bottle may be generous, but even $1 would be a welcome addition.
I don't believe we "give up" anything. To give some financial motivation, we hold some CAFS stock and they hold some MCIG.
"Snoody", heh, I like that one.
He talks big game, but has yet to deliver on anything of significance.
Feds don't give a sht about some 2mm market cap penny stock company.
Are you sure? I can't find them anywhere. Can you post a link?
Are you trying to 'incite' a volatile response? :)
Im guessing you must have meant 'insight'
I think you mean zero liquidity taking by bidders. If there is volume, clearly someone has purchased the shares sold.
Weren't you also impressed with Linkhorst?
Mark would have been fired after his first 60 days were he not Paul's good friend. Actually, I take that back, he never would have been hired in the first place.
MCIG/VTCQ long here but until 2015, I've been thoroughly disappointed in their hiring decisions.
Google completely disrupted the advertising market by offering the holy grail of marketing services: targeted advertising rather than spray and pray impressions.
Sure, NOW there are competitors ... But there really weren't any when google started...
ok, a 100% rise followed by a 15% decline results in a total return of 70% ...
You completely missed the purpose of my post ...
The point I was making was the total return is not the initial percentage rise less the following percentage decline.
Actually, the total return is actually only 50% for a stock that rises 100% on day 1 and then falls by 25% on day 2.
Example:
$1,000 base investment
+ $1,000 earned on day 1 after rising 100% ($1,000 * 100% == $1,000)
----------
$2,000 total at end of day 1
- $ 500 lost on day two after falling 25% ($2,000 * 25% == $500)
----------
$1,500 total at end of day 2
$1,500 total at end of investment
$1,000 total at beginning of investment
---------
$ 500 total cash earned over investment time period
($500 / $1,000) == 50% return on original investment
If your trading in a margin account, then it is absolutely 100% ok to sell prior to T+3 settlement. You can buy 100 shares and then turn around 30 seconds later and sell 100 shares. CNS will net out to zero during post-trade clearing resulting in no settlement activity (though your clearing broker will still charge you clearing and settlement fees!). If you sell the following day, then there will be settlement activity ... you receive 100 shares at T+3 and then deliver out 100 shares at T+4.
However, if you do trade prior to settlement more than 4 times in a rolling 30-day period, then you are "put in the penalty box" and are classified as a patterned day trader, which carries different margin requirements.
Now, if you are trading in a cash account (instead of margin), then no, you clearly cannot sell shares prior to settlement.
Ok. I'll shut up.
I said "potential" because no laws have been broken yet.
If you're going to make a legal argument, you have to provide some legal evidence to back it up.
If "intent" is what prevents the USPTO from approving the trademark, then provide your evidence for making that claim.
Ok, as far as I know, mCig hasn't broken that law (yet). All they have done is applied for a trademark for a device that, if actually sold, would break that law.
Is the USPTO prevented from approving trademarks for devices that, if sold, have the potential to violate a federal law?
Again, I don't know. It seems obvious that they should not be allowed to approve such a trademark, but I'm betting there are examples of them having so approved such trademarks.
Obviously it seems ridiculous that the government should approve a trademark for a device that would be used to break a federal law.
My post was an open question: Despite the obvious, is there actually any statute that prevents the USPTO from approving the EM-J? If so, please point us to it.
It's not dilutive, they are registering shares already held by early investors.
Is it really true that the USPTO will refuse a trademark application because it violates another federal agency's statutes?
Obviously it's natural to think that, I did too at first. Now I'm wondering why and how. They would have to be constantly checking statutes of all federal agencies to see current law. What USPTO statute requires them to reject applications for things that violate any federal reg?
Would they reject TurboTax or TaxCut because it can be used to cheat on Taxes? Or reject Absolute Vodka because it could be sold to minors?
I disagree. I work for a startup that just received a bank loan for 140k in February. We only have a 2 year operating history, and revenues last year were just under 100k. The loan was for us to purchase parts and materials with which to build our products and stock inventory to sell. Why were we able to get this loan? Simple, because the loan was backed by the assets we purchased with it, and the bank knows that in the worst case, they can take those assets and sell them to recoup the majority of their capital.
If MCIG needed a loan to purchase engineering tools and materials to build these CO2 extractors, I'm fairly certain they could get one without much trouble.
Now, if you're an OTC penny stock with management that has a questionable past, like VPOR, then you're right that you're not going to someone that's going to lend to you at prime + 5%, but you will absolutely be able to find someone willing to write a convertible note.
When you're using the cash from loan to purchase hard assets, tools, or raw materials, like MCIG would in this case, then it's actually extremely easy to get a loan ... The loan is collateralized by the new assets. Hence why I said "asset-backed loan" in my previous post ...
Furthermore, any publicly traded company should have no problem getting an unsecured loan as there is always the implicit collateral of the company's stock and the ability to tap the equity capital market if needed.
I agree, it does sound capital intensive. Most companies would use asset-backed debt for this, but MCIG ceo has a real aversion to debt so I would be shocked if they take any debt on.
It's kind of a shame they don't...I mean too much debt can absolutely drag a company down, but used responsibly, you can grow a company much faster than you can without it.