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.
I am back from my trip and saddened this has not recovered any of it's losses. I am at an average of $1.88 right now. However, I have a bid in @1.40. Hopefully it gets filled Monday so I can average down some more.
Unless of course this drops even more :/
It's true, I spoke with a Costco manager recently when I bought a wireless camera for my house.
Kool Aid Man, it costs money to make money buddy. You and I are looking at two sides of the same coin.
Also, have you seen Teslas stock price lately? How much money does that company make?
Just food for thought.
I did not account all the other irons. I am not sure how to fairly evaluate their other business lines but I think we will understand better how profitable they are soon.
IMO the Cannabis Clean business line has a lot of opportunity. I have a feeling they will contract with growers in Israel, US, and Canada. If they can take a good portion of the market quickly because of Elton Research, they may monopolize the market. I am unsure what their competition is but I will have to look into it at a later time.
I have have a buddy that owns a private grow company. They are profitable trust me.
Show me the evidence of "multi floors" in the design plans. I'll be waiting.....
Or are you not able to?
Hmm, how do you define smart?
Thank you for reading the actual article. I also posted more information in another post.
If they utilized all their grow space (50k sq ft) and did the industry average, 1k per sq foot, then they would make 150-200 (3-4 grows) million a year.
The article states 4-6 grows a year but that is likely for experienced producers. 4-6 grows a year would out us at 200-300 million. Again, if all the spaced was utilized.
The article states that 2/3rd of the facility is usually used for growing.
It's likely we will see half of that until more space is opened up etc.
Show me any governmental report or peer reviewed scientific literature showing me different.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/.../RAND_WR764.pdf
http://time.com/money/4385243/pot-shops-whole-foods-sales/
The article is from 16'
This states they make about 1k per sq ft.
50000*1000= 50,000,000
Lets say they can do 4 grows a year.
200,000,000 million per year if they were to utilize all the grow space.
Just checking in! I been looking around for any of our brands products but dice yet. Hope all is well in the states. It seems we been making international headlines but for all the wrong reasons!
Awesome!
I have already posted the actual data out there. These numbers are complete bull. Look for my older posts here and it will have the actual literature out there for it.
http://lcb.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/BOTEC%20reports/5a_Cannabis_Yields-Final.pdf
50 grams per square foot- that is the reality.
That would likely be the best option for both of us.
What do you think will happen today? I am going to say it's going to close green.
I hope I am wrong. My free shares are at a much higher price point than where we are currently.
I will be there to load up if it does. Right now my risk tolerance is not in pennyland with this stock, only sub-pennyland.
I imagine that this is going to keep going down. It's going to end up resting @ 1-2 cents I imagine.
Given, I am just a small time investor. I put in my funds into my account to grab more shares & average down. The market over reacted on this one.
You are likely right on the course the company is on. However, they lack real leadership and not to mention the disparity they show regarding their business acumen. I've followed this company for a while now. There should be a few more rides up for folks to exit if they choose to. I am riding free stocks right now so I am debating on when I want to exit. I would rather leave with cash in hand rather than none at all.
I hope I am wrong because it appears a good amount of those who advocated for U.S. Stem Cell Inc. on this board got screwed.
Sadly, .019 but they have a shady history they are working on overcoming.
Yes there are and that have been forensically audited.
Here are the rules regarding a change in the BOD:
On December 16, 2009, the SEC adopted amendments to the proxy rules for both registered investment companies and operating companies, and amendments to the registration forms for open- and closed-end investment companies, including separate accounts offering variable annuity contracts. (See SEC Release 33-9089, Dec. 16, 2009 “Adopting Release”). The new provisions require investment companies to provide new or expanded disclosure on the leadership structure of the board, the board’s oversight of risk management efforts, and qualifications for board membership. All amendments are effective February 28, 2010.
Proxy Statement Disclosure Changes
Item 22 of Schedule 14-A, the SEC’s proxy rules, contains special requirements for investment company proxy statements. Item 22(b), which governs information to be provided in connection with the election of directors, has been amended in several important respects.
Board Leadership Structure
Item 22(b)(11) has been amended to require disclosure of the information called for by new Item 407(h) of Regulation S-K. This item requires disclosure of the board’s leadership structure, including:
whether the same person serves as both principal executive officer and board chair;
whether the board chair is an “interested person” of the fund as defined in Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act of 1940;
if one person serves in both roles, or if the board chair is an interested person, whether the registrant has a lead independent director and what specific role the lead independent director plays in the leadership of the board; and
why the registrant has determined that its leadership structure is appropriate, given the specific characteristics or circumstances of the registrant.
The Adopting Release states that the amendments regarding disclosure of the board’s leadership structure “are intended to provide investors with more transparency about the company’s corporate governance, but are not intended to influence a company’s decision regarding its board leadership structure.” Participants in the fund industry will no doubt remember that the SEC in 2001 attempted to require all registered investment companies to have independent board chairs. A federal appeals court suspended the effectiveness of that rule and sent it back to the SEC for further consideration of the potential benefits of such a requirement. Although the SEC did conduct some additional studies, the rule never reemerged.
The new governance disclosure requirements have now seemingly replaced efforts to adopt such a rule. Indeed, the Adopting Release, in discussing companies in general, notes that “different leadership structures may be suitable for different companies depending on factors such as the size of a company, the nature of a company’s business, or internal control considerations, among other things” – a statement seemingly inconsistent with any attempt to impose a single governance structure on all companies, even those within a single industry, such as investment companies.
Board Role in Risk Oversight
Amended Item 22(b)(11) also requires disclosure of the extent of the board’s role in overseeing risk management, such as how the board administers its oversight function, and the effect that this has on the board’s choice of leadership structure. The Adopting Release notes that the SEC changed its description of this requirement from the proposing release, which called for a discussion of the board’s role in the company’s “risk management.” The Commission cited comments on the proposal urging that the board’s role is not risk management, but “to oversee management, which is responsible for the day-to-day issues of risk management” and that risk oversight is a “key competence” of the board.
The Adopting Release notes that funds face a number of risks, including “investment risk, compliance and valuation.” The release states that the Commission’s new disclosure requirement should provide important information to investors about how a fund perceives the role of its board and the relationship between the board and the fund’s adviser in managing material risks facing the fund. In discussing this requirement as it applies to registrants generally, the Adopting Release states that the requirement gives companies the flexibility to describe how the board administers its risk oversight function, such as through the whole board, or through a separate risk committee or the audit committee, for example. The release notes that companies may want to discuss how the board interfaces with individuals who supervise the day-to-day risk management responsibilities.
Although the new provisions are flexible in their application, the SEC is clearly using disclosure requirements to assure that boards are giving appropriate attention to risk oversight. In responding to this item, it is important that registrants not over- or understate the board’s responsibilities with respect to oversight of risk management. Overstating the board’s role may subject directors to a standard of conduct higher than what the law would otherwise impose on them, while understating the board’s role could subject the board to criticism for not having taken a sufficiently strong stance on the matter.
Qualifications and Experience of Directors and Nominees
Item 22(b)(3) has been amended to require disclosure of the specific experience, qualifications, attributes, or skills that led to the conclusion that each director or nominee should serve as a director of the fund. This information is required for all directors, whether or not they are up for reelection (although, in accordance with the general instructions, information need not be provided with respect to directors who will not continue to serve after the election to which the proxy statement relates). Although certain disclosure requirements relate only to the last five years, disclosure under this item should cover more than the past five years, including “information about the person’s particular areas of expertise or other relevant qualifications, if material.” Proponents other than the registrant that put forward candidates for director must include this information in their proxy materials.
The Commission noted in the Adopting Release that it had determined not to eliminate the existing requirement in Item 407(c)(2)(v) to disclose the minimum qualifications and the specific qualities or skills used by the nominating committee in evaluating potential candidates. The Commission stated that it was retaining this provision “because it will allow investors to compare and evaluate the skills and qualifications of each director and nominee against the standards established by the board.”
The final amendments do not specify the particular information that should be disclosed in response to this item. However, the release notes that if particular skills were part of the specific qualifications that led the board or proponent to put forward the person as a director, this should be disclosed.
In responding to this requirement, registrants should bear in mind that individuals with expertise in relevant areas may be subject to heightened standards of liability under federal and state securities laws. When the Commission in 2003 adopted the requirement that registrants disclose whether their audit committees include at least one “audit committee financial expert,” it also provided relief from some forms of potential liability to which such “experts” might otherwise be subject. The new disclosure requirements provide no such relief, despite comments from several organizations having raised concerns about such liability. Accordingly, registrants may wish to be circumspect in their descriptions of director qualifications, while honoring the requirement that disclosure be complete in all material respects.
Prior Directorships
Item 22(b)(4) has been amended to require disclosure of any directorships held during the past five years by each director or nominee for election as director in any company with a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act or subject to the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, or any registered investment company (collectively, “Reporting Companies”). The Adopting Release states that this information will allow investors to better evaluate the relevance of a person’s past board experience, “as well as professional or financial relationships that might pose potential conflicts of interest ….”
Prior Legal and Disciplinary Actions
Item 22(b)(11) has also been amended to require disclosure of information called for by new items 401(f)(7) and (8) of Regulation S-K. These items require disclosure of whether any director, nominee or executive officer was the subject of, or a party to:
any federal or state judicial or administrative order, judgment, decree or finding, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, relating to alleged violation of:
any federal or state securities or commodities law or regulation,
any law or regulation respecting financial institutions or insurance companies, or
any law or regulation prohibiting mail or wire fraud or fraud in connection with any business entity; or
any sanction or order, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, of any self-regulatory organization or equivalent organization.
The language of this provision, which requires disclosure where a person is “the subject of or a party to” a proceeding “relating to” alleged violations of the named statutory or regulatory provisions, is potentially very broad. It seems intended to sweep in a wide array of judicial and administrative actions that might be missed by the existing provisions of Item 401(f), which are quite specific. The new requirement to disclose involvement in court or administrative proceedings does not include any settlement of a civil proceeding among private litigants. While this exclusion is helpful, it also may be taken as an indication of how broadly the SEC intends the provision to be read otherwise. As with the existing provisions of Item 401(f), registrants responding to the new requirements may omit disclosure of proceedings that are not “material to an evaluation of the ability or integrity” of any director, nominee or executive officer.
The requirement to disclose a director’s or nominee’s involvement in various legal proceedings covers proceedings occurring in the past ten years. This expanded time period applies to the entire list of proceedings included in Item 401(f) of Regulation S-K, and not just the newly listed types of proceedings described above. (The disclosure period for the existing items had previously been five years.) For purposes of computing the ten-year period, the date of a reportable event is the date on which the final order, judgment or decree was entered, or the date on which any rights of appeal have lapsed.
Role of Diversity in Considering Board Candidates
Item 22(b)(15) currently requires a description of the board’s process for identifying and evaluating nominees for director. This provision has been amended to require disclosure of whether and, if so, in what way, the nominating committee or the board considers diversity in identifying nominees. If the committee or the board has a policy with regard to consideration of diversity, the registrant must describe how the policy is implemented, as well as how the committee or the board assesses the effectiveness of its policy.
In its Adopting Release, the Commission stated that some commenters responding to its proposal believed that requiring such disclosure would provide information on corporate culture and governance practices that would enable investors to make more informed voting and investment decisions. The release also noted comments to the effect that “there appears to be a meaningful relationship between diverse boards and improved corporate financial performance, and that diverse boards can help companies more effectively recruit talent and retain staff.”
The SEC made a point in the new disclosure requirements of not defining the term “diversity.” The Adopting Release notes that companies may define diversity in various ways, with some looking to differences of viewpoint, professional experience, education, skill and other individual qualities and attributes that contribute to board heterogeneity, while others may focus on diversity of race, gender and national origin. The Commission noted that, for purposes of this disclosure requirement, “companies should be allowed to define diversity in ways that they consider appropriate.” Thus, although the Commission is not defining “diversity” in the new disclosure rules, it will apparently be looking for registrants’ definitions of the term.
Registration Statement Disclosure Changes
Item 17 of Form N-1A requires open-end funds to disclose in the statement of additional information certain information concerning management of the fund. This item has been amended to require disclosure similar to that described above regarding:
the leadership structure of the board;
the extent of the board’s role in risk oversight;
directorships held by fund directors during the past five years in any Reporting Companies; and
the specific experience, qualifications, attributes or skills that led to the conclusion that each board member should serve as
a director of the fund.
Similar changes have been made to Item 18 of Form N-2 (the registration statement for closed-end funds) and Item 20 of Form N-3 (the registration statement for separate accounts offering variable annuity contracts).
Effective Date
According to the Adopting Release, all amendments are effective February 28, 2010, as the Commission wanted the changes in place for the 2010 proxy season. There is no indication of a later phase-in or compliance date for the registration form amendments. The Adopting Release also gave no indication of whether this effective date refers to the filing date or the effective date of the various documents. Because of the relatively short time before the effective date, registrants may wish to act promptly to supplement their D&O questionnaires to gather the necessary information.
http://www.klgates.com/sec-adopts-new-disclosure-requirements-on-board-leadership-board-oversight-of-risk-management-and-qualification-for-board-membership-12-23-2009/
Very true, the whole warmongering going on creates uncertainty in the market and we all know how the market feels about that.
I am hoping to clear some funds so I can buy more but my powder is dry right now! Timing was poor for the market to react the way it did. These prices are excellent entry points.
I hope the CEO stops blogging then...
That is a horrible rational, period. It's their job to supply the information. Just because they don't want to isn't a good enough reason.
I haven't got a chance to review their quarterly besides whats been posted here but it appears all good things. This is a great entry price right now.
It's going to trade sideways with a small shift downwards.
I leave this coming Saturday after a wedding I am attending in the Mountain West.
Thank you for the insightful post. I'll need to read into shorting more. I know my TDAmeritrade offers shorting but I have yet to try it.
I have a buddy that owns a farm in the pacific NW. I plan on visiting him when I get back to pick his mind about the business.
Most people, like me, are to poor to short penny stocks. Doesn't it require a crazy amount of cash on hand for the margin account?
Netherlands, Germany, and Azerbaijan are on my list this year.
It looks like Bot Bakery has favorable reviews:
https://www.facebook.com/botbakery/
https://www.yelp.com/biz/bot-bakery-chicago
https://www.instagram.com/bettybotbakery/?hl=en
That is always a good sign.
Most board posters dislike it when you are the voice of decent. I bought in when it was 2, took the ride up to 17 selling along the way. I have some left over shares which I am holding onto and plan to let them either ride or die.
We will see either way.
Thank you, I will be in three countries with the last destination on the Caspian so if anything pops up I'll send you a pic in your email.
I'll have to spend some time doing that while I am traveling today to evaluate your statement. Based off their leadership they should have in their filings that they are the ongoing concern.
There are winners and losers in the stock market, that's how it works. We are in a tight range right now so it can break either way. I would like to see the company succeed but their leadership has made me lose complete confidence in their ability.
I would just refer back to your posts. They tend to dismiss what you say even though you have been spot on the past 3 weeks.
I'm out of powder right now otherwise I'd be picking up more myself. I will be overseas for a bit so I hope to see their products in my travels.
I think the Kroger might be a little secret gem. Even if we are unsure of how many stores they are in we could see a little "Kroger bump" this quarter in sales too.
My previous post was unnecessary because you summarized up my takeaway from it too.