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.
The "going concern" accounting principle means the opposite of what you think.
It means the financial statements are prepared and able to be audited from the perspective that the company will remain operational for the next 12 months, as opposed to statements prepared with the expectation that the company will be liquidated or restructured sometime in the coming year.
The "going" implies the company will continue to operate. The "concern" implies the company will continue to be audited to display solvency.
It is a fundamental prerequisite of accounting that a solvent company be a going concern. This is taught in most corporate financial accounting courses.
"Vapor must be false advertising claiming they are using FDA approved formulas.............NOT!!!!"
Vapor Group has never claimed they are using FDA approved formulas. How can they be false advertising for something they have never advertised?
Re-read the text that you posted. They do not claim all of the products they use in the juice are FDA approved.
"All flavoring ingredients are approved for use in a regulation of the Food and Drug Administration or listed as being generally recognized as safe on a reliable industry list"
That is not at all equivalent to having a product "FDA Approved".
A. They are only talking about *flavoring* ingredients here.
B. The "or are generally recognized as safe" clause indicates that even some (10%? 99%?) of their flavoring ingredients are NOT explicitly allowed by an FDA regulation.
C. On the very same webpage from which you pulled this text, they explicitly state:
"These statements have not Been Evaluated by the FDA"
"All the liquids are made with fda approved products..."
Please cite your source.
The only language I've seen is standard marketing phrases like "products made in FDA-registered labs" or "our ingredients are on file with the FDA"
Don't get me wrong, I'd love for your statement to be true. If it is, I've been entirely unaware of that fact, and would love to know for sure.
"I agree, your right but this company up until now was clearing a massive debt that got their product FDA approved, marketed and promoted / advertised.."
What product of VPOR's is "FDA approved"?
It may have to do something with this (Section 8 paragraph o):
"The Buyer [Magna] shall receive 5% of gross profit under the assumption that the Company shall have gross profits of at least 60%. These payments shall be remitted within 15 business days of each quarterly filing. The Buyer shall receive these proceeds so long as the Buyer has any investment outstanding."
From the original Securities Purchase Agreement:
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1315718/000147793214002342/vpor_ex901.htm
C'mon,
First, you need to use free cash flow, not revenue.
Second, to get the present value of cash flows 1 year out using a 12% discount rate, you divide by 1.12 NOT 0.12.
There has been no change. Magna does not own any shares. Their filing is for the shares they could potentially own if they converted the notes they've always held.
Why do you say he knows the business so well?
This is no longer true. It used to be that some firms would not lend your shares out if you had a limit sell, but that was just their simple method of maintaining inventory to make good on deliveries.
These days I'd be very surprised if *any* firm still employed such simple minded rules. Most firms have algorithms that optimize their stock lending revenue by lending out the highest rebate rate shares available.
The regs state that if you have a debit balance in a margin account, then the firm has a right to lend out up to 140% of that
debit balance using ANY shares you hold in that margin account. There are absolutely zero regs that prevent firms from lending your shares if you have a limit sell order.
I'm curious as well. Did anyone happen to save a copy before it was deleted?
TOTAL SO FAR: 4,645,173 shares
5 investors
7 accounts
Position Tracking
Can everyone reply to this with the number of shares they hold long?
I'd like to get a count of the total number of shares board members hold so that we can all know about what percentage of the float is locked up by us!
To start us off, my holdings are:
1,550,000 shares total [650k in IRA, 900k normal account].
It's called isolation of legal risk and it's a smart move by mcig management.
lasermycig is not offering laser-powered vaping devices, they are offering laser-engraving for ecigs
Even with a margin account, shares can never be lent out unless you have a debit balance (i.e. you actually use margin).
And level 2 has nothing to do with having a cash account vs a margin account.
And sleek, quote volume is not equivalent to trade volume, but you know that, so I'm not sure why you would imply otherwise.
It's a mb myth that putting in limit sell orders will prevent your shares from being shorted. Even if you actually sold shares today, they could still be lent out. Equity sales settle in T+3 days but stock borrow/loans settle same day. Like 30 years ago brokers would lock up shared because of a limit order but nobody does that today.
Bottom line is if you have a debit balance then any shares whatsoever that are in your margin account can be lent out.
If you don't want your shares lent out then keep them in a fully paid cash account or simply don't use any margin.
Why did he check the "No" box next to "are there any significant changes in the operating results compared to last year".
The PR clearly indicates the change in results are extremely significant.
I'm guessing I'm misunderstanding the SEC language associated with that checkbox.
Are you joking?
Brand Equity is an established method of placing a valuation on marketing of a brand. It's also a GAAP line item.
Try telling Coke or Visa that their trademarks don't hold any intrinsic value.
Exactly. They would have withdrawn the S-1 or eliminated the dividend language in one of their revisions. Instead they have worked diligently towards filing an S-1 that the SEC will make effective.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest vitacig dividend will be cancelled and there is plenty of evidence to suggest it will be issued as planned.
I really can't believe people seriously think it might be cancelled.
I'm not worry about d or y selling their shares, I'm wondering who owned the other 39% when they started operations.
Any thoughts on my previous questions regarding dhror only owning 61%?
Who owns the rest? Who continues to sell at these prices?
Ownership & Share Structure
Can somebody breakdown the 270 MM shares of common outstanding by ownership?
To me, it looks like Dror owns 165 MM of that 270 MM, along with some preferred stock, which grants him controlling interest.
However, who owns the other 105 MM of common? Is it just whomever was lucky enough to be holding onto the shares when Dror initially bought the 165 MM shares?
Hasn't that screwed Dror out of ~40% ownership of the company?
Is there any way this is going to come back and bite existing shareholders?
I've been accumulating, b/c it looks like this company is going to be generating some serious cash in the coming quarters. However, I'm a bit nervous ... I don't want Dror waking up one day and deciding he screwed himself and then doing a reverse split followed by massive dilution.
I hope I'm misreading the details, or somehow don't correctly understand the full picture here.
I can't wait to be a significant holder here!
$6.5 per share would make this a 2 billion dollar company. I suppose it could happen, but it's unlikely unless management is smart and starts buying stock back as soon as they can fund growth with their earnings.
I've got 120k shares.
Only 400k for Q2 revenues? At an average of 20k per day that would be only 20 out of 63 business days!
Given 2-3k average sales per day in Q1, the growth rate in online sales and the impending retail distribution rollout I would expect something well over 10k per day in Q2.
Crap. I did not know that. I did notice the vitacig order numbers were randomized but the mcig order was low enough that I thought it was still monotonically increasing. Oh well.
Q2 revenues are still going to be gigantic!
412604 is the orderid I received on my order this afternoon. My order from a few weeks ago had something in the 40k range ... now we're in the 400k range!!!
At $10 an order, thats 4MM in revenue.
At $50 an order, that's 20MM in revenue.
I'm not sure what the average order size has been, but both of mine have been over $50. Once you put an mcig in your cart, and then you see that Glass Pak option, you really want it. Then you read the difference between the 2-unit Glass Pak and the 4-unit Glass Pak, and you really want the 4-unit. You have to figure most orders include both an mCig and a Glass Pak.
Q2 revenue is going to be *huge*.