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 first update from the company at this said Frank was "the “sole” legal representative of the WOFE". Nothing about his ownership. Since the financials have always listed it as as subsidiary, implying ownership.
Based on that, I'm tempted to think that WOFE was owned by GDHI and then CAGR post-merger. However, it seems like the corporate structure was never updated. If Jeff and others weren't added as directors of the subsidiary, then Frank is the only decision maker for it. Now he's decided to liquidate and the parent company can do nothing about it.
If I'm right, it was a major screw up by the other CAGR players (except Frank) at the time of the merger.
Perhaps people thought it was owned or controlled by CAGR because it has always been referred to as a "subsidiary" or "wholly owned foreign entity". Both of those refer to ownership by CAGR. If its just a separate company owned and controlled by Frank alone, then it's mote of a partnership or joint venture.
That was my point exactly!!! They were saying that for some reason all the wine inventory will vanish along with Frank and his WOFE.
"Huh...? The wine is already on the books of CAGR so what do you suggest they liquidate it and buy it back from themselves?
There is plenty of inventory so inventory is not this issue"
I'm not going to tell you why it's all good. You only quoted part of my post. The other part was a bit of a medical analogy for CAGRs status...
"But the discussion is really whether CAGRs condition is terminal or critical. Anyone who's not wearing rose colored glasses knows its not stable."
I'd say its pretty clear that I don't believe "it's all good". So please don't imply that I did. All I said is that it may not be as bad as all the doom and gloom you and others are preaching. No one who I would consider knowledgable about the specifics has explicitly said who controls the wine, which is the main asset under the CAGR umbrella ($ value of it is a separate argument that I'm not getting into - again, no proof of anything).
And no, even if you and pantherj speak confidently and act as if you have info others don't have, I don't consider your posts as proof of anything.
To be honest it doesn't matter who owns the wine. If its owned by WOFE, then they'll be able to pay back the loan from CAGR. If CAGR owns the wine, the loan is a write off. My only point is that both line items on the balance sheet shouldn't be wiped out with no return.
But both of us are on the outside with minimal info, and even that info has to be filtered of any spin that's been put on it. Time to wait and see.
But the discussion is really whether CAGRs condition is terminal or critical. Anyone who's not wearing rose colored glasses knows its not stable.
Also, the recent financials for CAGR showed $992K under "Inventories".
Then how would CAGR have any revenue at all if they never had any wine to sell? Just because you have an import partner, doesn't mean everything becomes their property. You use them to import the product for you.
Yes. So the assets of Frank's WOFE would go to $0, not CAGR's. The wine inventory is an asset of CAGR's.
Why would assets go to $0? If WOFE goes bankrupt and liquidates, it would sell of its assets, not CAGRs.
I don't remember reading anywhere that WOFE owned everything. They just had the permits and made customs easier.
The language used in the update from CAGR doesn't suggest this was their move. My impression is that this originated from Frank and the company is reacting. I could be wrong though.
There definitely good and bad sides of it. The plus is that your leaving behind Frank's rep as an inept and two-faced CEO. The negative is you lose your on the ground guy in China.
Also, the $467K loan to the WOFE should obviously now be repaid, but if their headed to bankruptcy that make be lost at least in part.
So CAGR still has a store and warehouse full of wine. The question is, is there anyone around to sell it? Frank's contract was included in one of the past filings and it includes a requirement for 8 weeks notice. I guess he might be around for a bit longer.
IMO, even if you consider getting rid of Frank a positive, this will still mean delays in the growth of CAGR. If it can still grow.
She's not incorrect. She's just speaking about what caused the last step back to 0.0006. And that was the $0.12 trade.
What you're talking about is the longer term cause of the current trading range. So in this case you're both right!
Very true that they don't have proof. But when he replies to your post saying you can't prove anything, that will be true as well. Different people believe different things based on the evidence, or lack thereof, that they have.
No if only I could keep myself from checking this board and reading all of the "opinions". Maybe I'll start iA - iHub Anonymous....
She'll provide audited financials if you provide official documentation from the SEC and other governing authorities stating that CAGR is a verified scam.
I'm seeing a big fat "Stop" sign on otcmarkets.com....
I'm seeing the last trade at 3pm, an hour before close. Hardly painting the tape at EOD. Or am I seeing incorrect info?
Also, dilution is a tough argument when volume is almost nothing. Certainly a rampant issue in the past, but not this week at least.
At this point, if I sell it will be due to boredom if things keep going like this week!
By the way, " someone clearing out their last shares via an agreement with their broker" would most likely mean a sell at the bid, not someone buying at the ask. So I'm not sure why you would chose that possibility.
It's more likely some shareholder who thinks they can manipulate the trends by painting a green day. Just sayin'...
Or someone who thought it was funny to ruin your "perfect day"! It wasn't me, but the thought crossed my mind.
Yes, their subsidiary. As in a company owned by CAGR. But why on earth would a scam like CAGR have a recognized/ranked subsidiary?
Also, if the Q's were going to show poor results, it could be argued that delaying publishing them would benefit shareholders. Releasing negative Q's would send the SP down faster than some unexplained fiscal year end change. I don't personally believe this, but some could argue that point.
For the record, my cautious optimism about this company is still very much on the cautious side. My concern is not so much that it's a scam, but more whether or not poor management will ruin a potentially good business opportunity. They seem to forget that as directors they have two different responsibilities. One to grow the business (sales) and another to look out for their investors. Sometimes that's as simple as providing info, and that's where they are failing miserably right now.
So you're implying they are now selling wine that doesn't belong to them?
So what you're saying is:
1) there is a store and it's open.
2) there have been sales (if they are selling off old GDHI stocked French wines, that's fine by me. Better than throwing it in the trash!)
3) if they keep their promises the share price will not be 0.0003. (seems reasonable since we're already well above that and no one knows what's going on)
Thanks for the update.
Fair enough if that's true. My recollection is that most of his posts were about "my friend says that..."
I'm not saying I believe him either. But why are you so convinced he's lying, when you were so quick to believe the other guy who said employees weren't getting paid and the store was in a bad location? There was no proof provided for that either but you backed him right away.
I'm in Canada and the Beer Store (no wine, no liquor, just beer) generally has samples as you enter. It was Corona when I was there on Friday.
Providing samples to generate more sales is not a new marketing strategy. Neither is having a free event to get people interested before starting to charge.
I had a similar conversation yesterday. I asked if the lack of info was at the companies request, but she just repeated "I have no information to give at this time".
I agree. I'm still a supporter in general of CAGR, but this new method has me scratching my head. Economics 101 is supply and demand. The PPS goes up when demand goes up. To increase demand you want to spread the word to EVERYONE, not just existing shareholders.
To me this is like the Jehovah's Witness folks deciding to only knock on the doors of people who are already drinking their Kool-Aid!
How do we know the location sucks? The only info I can remember indicating that is "xoutcagrapes" posts saying so. He also said it was a basement/underground space which we now know is untrue. His screen name alone gives away his motivations, so perhaps a confirmation of his info is needed.
Again, the filing he quoted was from 2010. Trying to run with that story is groundless. I could just as easily say "if they are retiring shares" based on 2010 pr's, but that would be a load of BS as well.
The rent wasn't due to be paid in Q1 so it won't be in the report. But it should be in the Q2 report. All I'm saying is it doesn't need it's own PR. The fact that there was no PR is not somehow proof that CAGR didn't pay the rent, or that they're a scam.
I also haven't seen a PR saying that they paid their phone bill. Does that mean it hasn't been paid?
Why would they PR "we paid the rent"? And if they did, you guys would be all over them for PRing such useless info!
CAGR and GDHI are very different. One was stagnant and the other is growing. CAGR jumped to .006 on good news and has since declined on dilution and slower than anticipated growth. But it has grown none the less.
And feel free to make your "pre-split is different than post-split" argument to ALL posts referring to the past, not just the ones on the positive-to-neutral side. You seemed to miss correcting the negative post ahead of mine.
You got half of it right. It hasn't stayed the same. You just got the wrong direction. The news has been good and increased the value of the company, if not the value of each individual share.
Pre-split the pps hovered between 0.0001-0.0002. Or a rough average of 0.0015 converted to post split numbers.
But you've been so kind to post numerous times that the outstanding shares have almost tripled in that time frame! (375mil on Nov 9th to 1096mil on May 29th). If the value of the company stayed the same, the pps should have dropped by the same ratio as the number of shares grew. That didn't happen.
With today's close of 0.0014 we're very close to our pre-split pps but with almost 3 times the number of shares out there! That tells me this company is growing (even if it's slower than some would like).
If your argument that the company is tanking were accurate, the pps would be less than 1/3 what it was at the split (ie. below 0.0005). That's obviously not the case.
My point was simply that you do not know anything with certainty. You have an opinion that you present as a fact. If the company wanted to lie, why include this info now?
I agree that something is screwy with the financials. They list the overdue notes, but I don't see them included anywhere on the balance sheet. There are a lot of unanswered questions, but jumping from that to them being criminals is a stretch.
You seem to think I'm defending the company. I'm not. You want to be everyone's saint for warning us all about CAGR's faults. I'm just reminding everyone that you're jumping to conclusions without sufficient proof the same as those who are predicting "we're going trouble the moon with news!!".
Again, you can't say this for sure. Didn't you ramble on a few days ago about how hard receivables are to collect on China? Perhaps the $ are the same because they still have not been able to collect an old debt?Maybe there are no new receivables because they are selling on a COD basis? I offer these as a possibility, not a certainty.
At this point it would be great to have a conference call to get answers to some of these questions. Until that happens, neither the pumpers, the bashers, or the fence sitters (me) can say much with certainty.
You don't know where these came from. Maybe they weren't on the previous GDHI financials over the last few years because they didn't come from that side of the merger!?! I won't say that is definitely the case because I don't know for sure. You should take a lesson.
An update - I just called the TA (at about 4:50 EST) and I was told the O/S is 4,031,479,290.
A quick note...only preferred shares have voting power in GDHI. Common shares do not. Interesting that you would insinuate that Frank is violating rules regarding majority votes when I'm pretty sure you have posted several times before about the non-voting common shares.
Of course that's nothing compared to the way you implied that Frank and Alyssa have insider trading schemes going on just a few posts earlier.
But what makes perfect sense is that my post will likely now be deleted, and yours will be left for everyone to read and believe. Now I remember why I avoided this board for a while.
Perhaps he issued them in Q4 because the funds were needed in Q4, not months later when the financials are issued.
Amazing that your trying to put a negative spin on that sale. If they sell for $10 a bottle, 12 per case thats a $12,000 sale to a first time buyer. Not bad.
But I guess your right, if the wine cellar owner won't go to a food show and make a surprise $1M purchase of 10,000 cases, he's hardly worth dealing with! Maybe your expectations are just a little high!