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.
Then it's understood how the statement 'there's no other citing' which can be proven false by a 15-year old with an iPad is of some concern. It's a re-visitation of something not 'novel', as stated.
Furthermore, if it's credibility is based of these 'reputations', why is it--in the company's own words-- they cannot find anyone interested in funding them? If this is truly what it's being called, that should no be an issue. Selling securities would not be their sole solution.
And there really was no answers to my original questions, they still stand if they can be answered by anyone, I genuinely want to know if they can be remedied.
But then it's understood how claiming there's' 'no other known citing' of this type of research, when a 15-year old with an iPad can find that statement false is of some concern. It's a re-visitation of something not 'novel'.
Furthermore, if it's based
So, I'd just like to know the response to this. But does it bother anyone else that supposedly this newest 'novel approach to cancer treatment' in which there is 'only one reproducible system in which cancer is destroyed by the immune system' is in fact not new at all, with multiple tests and studies dating back over 10 years in which both the immune and innate immune systems are the focus of reducing tumors? I mean, there's even a Wikipedia entry about how the immune system fights tumors in the body.
Furthermore, a different study than this guy had cited as 'the only one to my knowledge' was by people and organizations backed by grants from the American Cancer Society, the Cancer Research Institute, and the NIH, just to name a few, but the current study by this company, according to the last filing 'can't find enough interest from anyone for funding so they will sell securities'. Not to mention it appears by their numbers they conducted R&D for less than a million dollars (given they are also researching other products as well), and are basically saying they've uncovered a cure, as compared to the multi-million dollar nonprofits with every available technology focused on just that? And they haven't just swooped in and picked it up?
Don't get me wrong, I don't care about the money or the stock and would hope to God they have actually uncovered a reproducible and effective cure for this, but in reality, it seems for a large part there's a swing holding on the hope that this guy and his research team--who didn't even give enough info to the FDA on their last product and haven't really cited the necessary ethical and procedural protocols for such research--just cured cancer.
Does this smell right?
I thought it was supposed to be this one, lol
Mmm, naaah. What's funny is everything I said was literally business 101 and not opinion, but literally 'how it works' and what can be traced. So I'm really not bothered when REALITIES show a much different picture than the VERY far surpassed 'another Ray Barton scam' lie. Seriously, this was a lost position like 10 months ago, and it's sure not an actual winner now.
Btw, what if more likely than 'another Ray Barton scam' it's 'another company Ray Barton helps onto the INC list'? I've heard it takes some weeks to find him there, but it's pretty simple to verify he's done well for companies as well. Oh yeah, both sides of the coin , the full picture. I guess that won't be told since it doesn't suit the first false theory...
Hmm, too bad he's not even CEO so it doesn't matter anyways..
'How much time do they need' is basically a business 101 question. I would like to know the name of a company who has laid the groundwork that MedGen has in the first 19 months since product release. Btw, it's usually a 3-5 year process for a business foundation to be laid in totality and start reaching profitability, and for a turnaround there's other issues to complicate that even more. So for 19 months, yeah, I think there's quite a lot of items which are going to matter ZERO when they reach full capacity. (Also, the major companies have some pretty interesting first 5 stories, and some which are now BILLION dollar companies had an even longer 10). Info like this is kinda important to know. Not just a company with a sponge one time which had a stock...On the other hand, there's actually a few items they shouldn't have even actually achieved yet (important to ACTUALLY balance the two).
I'm sure I'm about to get a recap of 'Nick said's', but considering I can recount it all and not with the limited information provided (and knowing where determinations would be improper to even make yet with what's publicly available at this stage), there are really plenty of other things more important to focus on. We're here now, and JUST going by the measurables--and no, not the PPS (don't know how many ways I can say I don't care about it right now, it's only good for accumulation and flipping), and not PRE-ADVERTISING SUMMER revenue. LOL, this is a really ongoingly weak argument, almost as bad as the MMJ one which still doesn't explain how a licensed product which they will literally just be handed money for with no overhead is a bad thing (ie, it's not).
Add to that 'they never do anything on time' except for the 5 first products they released TO THE DAY of when they said they would, the bar which came off of the line when it was supposed to, then went through a focus group and had to fix shelf-life and consistency issues (all of which we knew), and the licensed product which came out at a great time, and the lactose which has some important updated info about the parent company so they are hardly 'sitting on' (LOL).
This is seriously just filler which matters zero for the long run and hardly dictates the future of the company. So, ya, I'm not hurting if it takes a little more time to do properly...
'Get ready' is actually the only wise advice taking into account how a business actually grows. Won't be tomorrow, and it doesn't need to be...but props to whoever was sitting on the bid and got those 5s, and yes, though viewed as 'dumping' all we're picked up into stronger hands today.
Btw, I think this one has a good chance of going off. Good luck to you.
LOL, sure, as if what I'm reading is accurate, because there's a LOT more that's interesting if the topic is actually what parts were applied from business school.
I'll make this as simple as I can; when applying the most BASIC 'school' questions:
1) How long should a company which is being turned around take to show profit? They're first million? Be in the black?
2) When launching a product with a major online retailer, how long should that process take? On this topic, I would like to know just 3 others who cut a deal with Walgreens within their first year. Since school also teaches market comparables, this should be simple.
I could go on and on, but these should be basic, and if answered correctly, actually accurately tell us a little about where MedGen is, and why what Nick actually accomplished is more than is actually being given credit for, and what Justin has to bounce from. Yes, there is a lot of misrepresentation; usually of the ACTUALITIES of where the company is. And easily I could give a dozen example right off the too if my head which no, aren't opinions in the slightest, actual verifiable lies about the company. I was interested in certain markers, the ones common to look for in these beginning stages of a company...they hit them all, and a few I wasn't expecting. Many of the detractions are things that DO NOT MATTER if they are done in the first year or the first three years. It's about getting them done. And since conditions change, adapting and seeing adjustments is way more important than many of those at the early stages. Hardly time to judge many of those yet. Doing so will always come up short, because the data isn't there yet.
Speaking of, if the 'only $11K' topic keeps coming up, can I please know what kind of POs they had in that same quarter? (Oh, they're there...). What deals? It's funny that there still is a complete omission of any acknowledgement that judging a company BEFORE they've even started an advertising run will give ZERO ACTUAL representation of the companies potential....ZERO, but it sure tries to be done...
This is the world's bad...these arguments really have so little traction, and like dozens before them, will be blown out of the water and have to change to some new tactic.
Oh, more excited to see a NEW product launch. Double-edged sword. Product they will just be HANDED CASH for, and a brilliant cross-promotion going on...but I'm sure this too will somehow be made into something bad for the company...too bad it's not, and a downward argument that will now go based on what are actually legitimate business practices...yeah, that's not gonna work out either...
While citing sources written by paid idiot bashers like yourself as your main research...
I've actually never seen anyone be WRONG more times than you, and you think by changing the topic when you come up short (a lot) no one notices, LOL!
Oh, it's known how bad you are at this...by quite a few...
Still stands, especially since none of that answers the simple 101 questions that are pretty noticeably unknown, and only point (don't know how it got to an 'aren't I pretty?' conversation), is the lack of those knowns of what makes a business successful (and basic timeframes things usually occur in) is quite different than quick flips.
Ah...the penny stock world, where making a few bucks makes one think they could manage a Fortune 500 company...always a comical scenario to watch...
You climb downward? I always thought that was called falling. In the toilet. Where the loss on investment currently lives...
Really??? Because the 29s bought amazingly are now down about 20%, and the good money thrown after the bad money at 26 is now down about 10%.
I, however, had my 5s on my other up over 100% already, and now comfortably sitting up 60%, but it's not even close to the time to sell them.
But hey, you're the one that wanted to compare them in September, not me. Bad decision.
Well done. You know nothing, Jon Snow...
I thought it was supposed to stay there before and never move. Oops.
Oh, is that 8's with 9's up right now...? Double oops...
Not the first wrong assessment on this...not the last...and this couldn't even be more obviously at its beginning stages, so who cares anyways? Buy and flip now, or hold for long term gains and see some movement.
It's already moved. It will again. Zero doubts. Exactly as stated. And this isn't even the biggest move it'll make. Really pays to know how to recognize business cycles and know how to differentiate a proprietary item they'll be handed money for licensing from 'not a big deal' (like 3 basic factors which prove that immediately wrong).
Btw, haven't seen many 'gimmick' bar products with months of R & D, focus groups, and the painstaking full design process before. Woulda been put out as a gimmick much earlier, and doubtfully as part of a line. Funny that the arguments now aren't even made up theories as much as the are just calling into question completely normal business practices...kinda reveals how far and how long that argument has been lost for (FYI, a while).
But I'm sure the PPS (which we've already stated 37 times we could care less about at this stage) will get pulled back as the focus with no remedy to how this stacks up against normal business growth (ie, pretty much in line, ahead in some cases).
Doesn't matter anyways, this stuff is just filler until it's time and the complete foundation and plan is down (um, not usually only 19 months after a product release, normal to be quite a bit longer, especially in a restart, but that's common 101 stuff anyways...)
Bahahahaha! THAT was a killing being made??!! At MOST it was a few thousand bucks for ALL the flipping, and not even that from the cost of original buy-in and the taxes due, and the longed for 12s never even came, so it was basically settling for less than an ounce of patience would have earned.
Oh, and since it was lied about last week that $2000 profit was made on a certain day (which it wasn't), I don't care or believe it much anyways. And yes, it was lied about, because the claim was 4s we're flipped at 6s for a $2000 profit on the same day, which means at least 10 million shares at 4 needed to be bought and the 10 mil sold at 6 for that profit margin to occur, of which neither transaction ever happened, and the total volume leveled the claim anyways.
So I don't get where lying about profit matters anyways, or how somehow it leads to the conclusion all profit has now been taken because THOSE shares are sold even if it HAD actually occurred. Haha! That's pretty hilarious, actually.
Right now, yes, this is good for flipping, and that's about it. Get peanuts while they can be made. But the REAL money is yet to be made. And the ludicrous claim that the company is 'done' right before a product (two, actually) launch and PRE their main advertising campaign?????? HAHAHAHA!!!! Not quite how that works...
Buahaha! I think these just went from bad to worse!
"Nothing has been debunked" which--ironically--itself is completely debunkable, with almost a dozen easy ones right off of the top of my head. So there's one lie.
And don't forget "this isn't going anywhere...oh, except it may get a dead cat bounce". Notice the contingency? Oh, it's definitely not going anywhere, except, well, if is does, but then that's a TOTAL fluke. LOL, I'm sticking to one story--it'll move. Like, no problem move. Not worried at all.
And now, the 'oh, Ray just got an old site and revamped it to make thousands off of stock', even though the groundwork and even just breaking into Walgreens alone can be worth millions. Oh, and the half dozen indicators that actually show that false. And don't forget he's been selling for months before it was even converted haha. Yeah, pretty easily proven wrong. Creative, but bad theory. Funny though.
And 'why would I want to debunk the truth'? Haha, except with the full context and just the most basic application of industry knowledge and how companies ACTUALLY grow, the story changes.
Most obvious is the complete omission of the fact they haven't even started their advertising run yet, though I'm glad to hear of some social media targets moving, that's a great sign. I mean, just skipping that shows how these really bad arguments aren't even TRYING to tell the whole story. Clear as day.
And yes, could take time, they're early in this process yet (never heard of a business getting it's full assessment at 19 months after product re-release lol), but I'd be getting ready too..good things ahead...
Hahaha, that's a good call.
It's funny when you hear guys like this talk like they actually know what goes into a product launch. But they don't know the 120 things that could go wrong right beforehand. And if the company is planning a launch and working til the last second, sometimes one of those things happens and pushes it all back.
Quite different from lying, but I guess that doesn't sound as flashy, haha...
Lol, Ray Barton also got a company into the INC list--might want to look that up...
I'm their friend.
Another bad argument dubunked...many more to come...
The end.
Lol! I love 'facts' without the actual basis of how the industry even works. There's like 7 pieces here that are so off-base it's not even worth going into.
But just things like THEY are somehow supposed to be responsible for the release of a LICENSED product. Lol! Anyways, if a piece got pushed back, and trying to rope that into 'ITS A LIE! ITS A SCAM!' Haha! There's such a big chasm between the two. And knowing the difference is a bit important.
And that's all that really needs to be known about these poor arguments. They jump so quick from 'he's bad at business' to 'it's a huge scam', and that fact these two seem to swap back and forth but are actually completely different just shows how inconsistent these actually are.
The only 'facts' are ya, Nick definitely did make mistakes, as does anyone running a company and especially turning one around. He set projections based on circumstances that changed. So dwelling on it now is kind of funny and a waste of time.
But the 'it's a scam' argument ran it's course SO long ago, it's a waste of time now. No scam, not even close. And Nick isn't the CEO, but actually laid a few pieces of impressive groundwork, which again, is why dwelling on things yet to come is such a waste, bc it's FAR from complete.
Oh, btw, just like all of these, recently it was 'there is no bar. It'll never be released' and on and on and on. I notice that was scratched off of the list, like many other items, since the bad arguments have to keep changing so often. And many more will as well...
But seriously, this early in a business, during the standard growth timeframe they're still in, most of these can even go on the list of 'who cares?' I'm not in this for today or next week, they've got plenty of time , and are hitting certain markers I wanted to see and they should be at this time in a build--and some a bit early...seems like it might pay to know what those are...
Truth is, at this time this is only good for flipping, or as a long term hold to establish long cap gains until they complete their base plan, but it's pretty predictable. I mean, the investors will come when certain groundwork is established, not before, there's less risk, but less reward. It's not like they're gonna buy in heavy based off of a projection when the basis of what needs to be established for that to occur isn't even formed yet, as finicky as it is in this industry. That'd be a horrible idea...
As for long term holders, ya, I know plenty, and over 150 million EASY being held, most at the correct buy-in, so even at these levels they're seeing a bit of green, so not worried about that either...
Oh ya, facts. Coupled with actual industry knowledge, they're pretty handy....
Lol, A 'one-sided' list which yielded a one-sided list as it's rebuttal, that's awesome. On SO many levels. Not to mention 1 of 2 examples I've seen so far which perfectly verify EXACTLY what I said would occur. And since the first 'one-sided' list actually was a specific response and still stands just fine, it's even funnier, because the supposed rebuttal is so full of swings and misses and more half-information it could be deflated with exactly what people who know what this company is doing already know--just DD.
And if it's the 'company will be what the company has always been', or however it's stated, I agree:
It's a company which sold over 3,000,000 UNITS of its central product
It's a company who has had management previously make it to the INC list due to explosive sales this industry has
It's a company whose products have sat on major retail shelves for most of its life, and is no stranger to big box stores
And now, it's one if the few companies talking about an MMJ product which will ACTUALLY not only release an actual product, but licensed their first one to a major player in the field.
So actually, it looks like it's not only going to be the same, but BETTER than it was. (Oh, there is a transition timeframe, they're not always in it, but yes, clearly in it now, as well as a CEO changeover, neither even debatable)
Good call--lists are awesome.
Oh, and the previous one still stands, as stated, with the rebutted arguments that mean ZERO at this stage in the game, I can pick that apart later, but just a little DD does that for me. Easily, lol. (Btw, it was comprised of the most basic 101 examples, so to try to skew one-sided circumstances to negate basic principles that still stand...no...just no...)
And I suppose btw btw: On the 'what the scorecard says' angle--who cares when it's only the 2nd inning? And there are PLENTY more runs to come for this team.
It's always interesting how these bad arguments which 'only deal in facts' are so noticeably void of actual facts about how the industry works or businesses grow in general. Almost like a one-sided list...hmm...
Lol is right. No one actually giving an accurate assessment of a company would EVER:
1) Look at the retail in and around the SUMMER MONTHS for an accurate picture of sales
2) Judge a company's FULL POTENTIAL on a major website on their FIRST QUARTER ON IT (this one is so funny, they're even on the site before they should be. I'm still waiting for the list of other companies that have done it faster)
3) Make an assessment on a company's sales potential BEFORE THEY'VE EVEN STARTED ADVERTISING.
4) Judge a company's overall performance BEFORE A RESTART OR STARTUP IS EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE PROFITABLE (oh, like being in the black)
5) Miss so badly that by common knowledge for a standard business THEIR TOTAL INCOME HAS ALREADY PUT THEM IN A SUCCESSFUL BRACKET FOR A BUSINESS.
6) Completely miss how INTERNET PAYMENT CYCLES WORK. They don't get paid right when Walgreens sells it anyways, and sometimes, especially during a first placement, have a 90 day realization period for POs, etc
7) But besides that, miss that just getting onto the Walgreens site is a STARTING POINT, and the fact that they've been on shelves for the majority of the company's life, and that now we know they've been talking to big box again all along, the relationship is the interesting part, not to mention the forthcoming shelves ARE THE PROFITABLE PART.
8) Miss so badly that more than just $11K in sales happened last quarter anyways. (Uh, so they paid for more than their cash and sales, and not with credit...hmm...)
9) Or even try to size up a business as going down by what happen during THE FIRST QUARTER WITH A NEW CEO DURING THE TRANSITION
LOL is right, trying to say. 'This is what MedGen is months before it's even established that just by how a standard business grows...swing and a miss...again and again. And no matter what's happened and what gets said, what gets pulled out of the total progress while ignoring the successes...yeah, it's still moving forward...clearly. And no bad argument will stop it...
Oh, I'll guess I can add the 'they only have one MMJ product in a small market' line. Yeah, starting with one. In one state. With one company. Which they licensed. And will literally just collect money on. And this is...bad??
Lol is right.
A loss of almost 20% on a 15 million share investment at 29's is the beginning of a climb...? Huh, interesting, that seems like it's going the other way. See, I deal in facts...perhaps I'll just do the opposite of that and actually MAKE money...
Haha, looks like it pays (and will) to know how these cycles work, and to know how to tell there was a lot more than $11K in sales for last quarter going on...(ohhhh no, other inconvenient numbers on the Q and elsewhere not just giving a small snapshot that isn't even fully accurate, too funny)
Hearing that again and again is a swing and a miss, but I'm sure it will be a continual anthem, no matter how actually pointless it is to think that a company's entirety is ACTUALLY summed up by a single first quarter on a major site BEFORE THEY'VE EVEN STARTED ADVERTISING LOL!!!! The more important thing (and the point and timeframe the company is expected to be laying down a basis, and yes, 19 months since product release is still that timeframe) is the relationship, and the implications (looks like another thing it pays to know).
Btw, one question, still curious, if these guys are doing it so badly, there should easily be a dozen market comparables, so which other companies cut a deal with Walgreens within their first year after return from dormancy from the recession? I'd love to know that, because as anyone who knows this industry can say, that's really hard to do.
Only question being asked...
Lol, no, not is more accurate, for obvious reasons.
Hilarious to hear how quickly the arguments have fallen into theories based off of 2 management cycles ago, and a completely different market at that juncture everyone who has ever managed a company is aware of, LOL.
I'm sure more will come...probably get worse and be less relevant too, as are these...
Lol, I love how 'he's a disaster' yet just common business growth dictates that the majority of the work done in the timeframe he was in charge was only mostly foundational, and the real implications remain to be seen. Just one question, can I please have another company coming back from dormancy that cut a deal with Walgreens in their first year? Oh, I know, but Walgreens is SOOOO unsuccessful. Lol, another common aspect would be to hardly try to make a major assessment for their FIRST QUARTER on the site and WITHOUT ADVERTISING YET. Haha, that'd be a hilarious argument, doubt it would be made, since it's a huge miss.
But again, only one question, who else laid this groundwork this quickly, especially the Walgreens connection. (Which means they have been talking to big box from the beginning. Gee, why might that be important, lol)
These are so bad, and most have so little to do at this stage as to where these guys can be in six months, a year, or more. But again, that's why it's pretty much just words until the right time comes for things to all be seen, as is common knowledge anyways...but I'm sure more like that will be tried anyways...
Haha, so a single Q before any kind of advertising campaign whatsoever and a first quarter with a major site (oh, may want to decipher a few more of those pesky numbers which show more than just recognizable sales, lol), all of a sudden dictates where they will be as a company when they are ACTUALLY at the point a restart should be showing it's value??? LOL!!! Just seeing that actually tells me all I need to know, ARGUMENTS LIKE THAT ARE BAD, AND NOT GETTING BETTER!!!
Haha, oh my gosh, it's not all of a sudden going to negate how a business ACTUALLY grows and expands, and seeing how poorly referenced these arguments are in ACTUAL reality of business standards, it's not even making anyone who understands these practices flinch. Oh, yes, that would be over 150 million shares held tight.
I absolutely love it when an argument with maybe 10% visibility of the company and no frame of reference into common questions tries to dictate what a company should or should not be doing; and I'm sure more of that is on the way.
Let's make this easy--couldn't have said MORE times that this is only an accumulation period. And ANYBODY buying at these level will EASILY be doubling their money if they just have the slightest bit of patience. Anything can be said during these phases, lol, doesn't actually make it truth or accurate, and that's the case with the easy argument I've already won. No more of that, it's well over.
Lol, this company has a proven ability to make it onto the INC list, I'd look up more important factors about what's it's capable of and how growth in this industry happens, versus what a company looks like during the restart process.
Lol, already won that argument pretty easily, with 5 easy questions about their restart standings that went noticeably unanswered; not too interested in entertaining more lost positions...EOM, no more on this, waste of time
Sorry, must have misunderstood. Unless of course the question is how long he needs to consult to help get the company BACK on the INC list. Even though, I have heard of scammers trying to pretend they have companies who have done that. But it's very convenient that's forgotten, as well as him having sold companies for millions of dollars and actually pioneering a few things many use today, if any ACTUAL research were done, and not just platitudes tossed around about what a man did to try to save a company from a recession. All in all, statements like 'Ray Barton's scam' are so worthless it becomes funny and shows how lacking full assessments really are in such nonsense...
Wait, wait, so then all of the same "research" we've been supposed to believe which over-uses the word 'scam' since it's so full of holes is based in the same "researching" which didn't even know there's been a new CEO for a full quarter??? LOL, that's all I ever needed to know...oh, besides the obvious indicators which shows how lost the scam argument is in the first place...
Luckily, many know better and possess patience needed for a restart company to build again...
Lol! Nice try! That's HORRIBLE and not even close to based on reality! "Not selling products=no news"???? HAHAHAHA, that's not even close to what was said, or true. Oh man, sooooooo bad....only in penny land does the thought process exist a successful company still in the start-up timeframe needs to release news every week to 'show' they're successful. So bad, I can't get over it. I think the fact the cut a deal with Walgreens in their first year says enough, and there's plenty more to say. Wow, just bad.
Oh, btw, try this equation:
Just getting started=already in the black.
Wait, no, that's not right, this one:
Already in the black=not even reported quarter when live on Walgreens.com
Wait wait, no, this:
Releasing product with major MMJ company with no overhead=free money
Bottom line, the only thing that is actually accurate is we will see bad assessments like this one until this comes to fullness, which isn't the stage a re-start should even be in yet, so there's time to go, lol. Gosh, I wonder why the other element for this is patience, and how many languages I can say 'who cares at this stage about the PPS.'
Hmm, I also wonder why over 150 million is locked up and not being dumped by investors who know how businesses grow...? Oh, that's right, bc they all know better than "no products sold=no news" lol.
Lol! Boy, did I call that! The 'best' arguments are all 'but Nick said', and not even based in the standard timeframes they actually occur in, but a CEO who thought he was ahead of the curve and spoke too soon. But we're supposed to believe bf they are even supposed to happen they are 'not successes' lol!!! Oh man, this is bad. Most don't even matter in the long run if they happen in 2 months or 2 years. And some won't matter at all.
With experience, each one of these items can be seen as not even to its timeline yet, Nick speaking too soon, Nick missing (and no, they're not all, lol), and which are succinct with the industry. Not even to mention almost all can be accounted for with just the slightest element of context.
I mean, missing the actuality of their progress and only listing 'has nots' is NOT how you can sum up a successful/non-successful business. It makes everything listed a busted and obsolete argument--worthless to even entertain without the full facts (and no, re-listing half of the facts AGAIN does not give the full story, haha, that's a busted avenue).
I mean, that's ACTUAL 101 stuff. But in the interest of the 101 nature of these busted arguments, could I please have a few questions answered, just to make sure I'm on the same page...
1) What would be the industry standard timeframe a company would expect to go from signing a deal to placement onto a major website like Walgreens.com? Where did MedGen land in that timeframe?
2) Assuming the re-release of their main product in early 2013, what should the expectation be to re-establish distribution channels, production lines, into shelving again in a major store?
3) Speaking of major stores, given the pretty obvious nature of a Walmart test (again, takes a bit of experience, but obvious), how long would a store or region conduct a smaller test market for before going on to full market implementation?
4) What income range should they be in to be considered 'a successful business'? Where do they fall in that range?
5) Lastly, how long should it take for them to lay down certain foundational elements and see such things as operating in the black, investing in advertising, etc?
Just a few curiosities. And knowing things like this are FAR more important than 'but Nick said's'. LOL, nope, still busted arguments...
I have a few more, but if these simple ones can't receive an accurate responses, what's the point?
Yup. Very well said. The company's on the way up, and the ticker, as you said, will have its day. I especially like the 'etc, etc, etc', because the positives of where they're heading in conjunction with what they've already done are quite extensive to list. And this is just the 10% we can even SEE right now.
I especially like that their income could label them as a successful and expanding company right now WITHOUT even having their full advertising campaign or major shelving in effect. Since you know how this all works, that's kinda a big deal...
Again, very well said, a lot to be made here, see you on the other side...
Seems to be missing here. And somehow not buying at these levels is 'smart'? Lol! This is easy money, just as you said, takes patience. That's the only enemy, besides clear lack of understanding of how an industry works. I'm more interested in how the company stacks up against the industry standards, and to anyone who knows, they're doing it well. I love what will be thought to be the 'best' arguments against that will all start with "But Nick said...". Haha, it's a choice, take em as they are, a company working with Walgreens and literally just collecting money from an MMJ product, or live in 1982 and miss out. It'll show value when it's ready, and yes, it will absolutely go over .001 again, that's just absurd nonsense.
Naive? I guess that'd be like believing an unresearched and incorrect accusation who's "supporting evidence" had already been proven HORRIBLY WRONG over TWO DOZEN TIMES. False arguments like this have lost credibility, as anyone who has done two minutes of research knows this is a real company which in the FIRST YEAR BACK from dormancy already cut a deal with Walgreens (who researches things FAR more than the average) and any claim to the contrary at this point just appears desperate...
Oh, and yes, a restart, by ACTUAL definition, funny that's even in debate, it's just another attempt of a lie covered with another lie, an ongoing theme, and easy to spot...
LOL, this is the umpteenth argument I've seen not even remotely in the realm of the actual context of an original statement, which is why these arguments must be so poorly executed and ineffective. The question was never 'why was he demoted' but rather 'why did they keep him'. Lol, quite different. Gee, why did the keep the guy who cut major deals and takes no salary and makes nothing unless they succeed? Gosh, mystery. And it's a good thing I'm not focussing on a projection with the extension of the circumstances unable to be fully applied which change the context of the entire outcome (oh no, context agaaain!), bc I'd be totally ignorant to even try to size up everything a man did in 2 years when we can only see about 10% and the other 90% comes into light as this progresses. Just like Walgreens.com, had to listen to nonsense about 'it's a lie!' when the answer was obvious.
And no, 'Business 101' can't just be used as a tag phrase to try to make out-of-context arguments relevant, lol!! Anyone with experience knows exactly why he's now COO and also why they kept him. Not rocket science , though it sure acts it...
But I'm sure there will be more pulled focus onto arguments that don't even matter in the long term. And 'trying to rationalize??' HAHA! That's why I've constantly called it an accumulation point which with just a little bit of patience and wisdom will show to grow and earn thousands of dollars for people going in at this point EASILY! Better yet don't 'need to rationalize' when the company showed more than I thought it would in its first 4 quarters back and more indicators as well. This constant nonsense will soon fade and is pretty much just entertainment which will show itself to be just misguided humor. The funny part will be how LONG it will have been wrong for, but pushed as being correct. Lol.
Btw, the last really bad contention that he somehow DID take this magical $150K salary--not uncommon for a startup or restart, especially with stock options and this scenario. Knowing how this works, what went forward for inventory and production runs, these are getting pretty bad, they're not even valid or actually even 'arguments' per-say , just noise.
Nope, not ineffective, just a little Business 101 would tell that. Cut a deal with Walgreens in the first year back, got 5 products onto the market, and many more parties interested (and much more we can't even see). This is just bad and just a small example of the flailing and misguided logic. He's there bc he has strengths (not to mention working for his own benefit, not even a salary), and before he was going it while basically on his own. Now, he can focus where he's good and let Justin take over the heavy lifting and places he was weak. Duh. This isn't even uncommon practice for anyone who understands the basics of running or growing a business.
Haha, no kidding. Only in the penny stock world is what hard work looks like not recognized. In answer to the question, yes, I have gotten a response from the company, and no, Justin doesn't talk like Nick does, who gave info publicly before it was actually ready. He works. And the are some pretty obvious indicators as to the direction these guys are going. Somehow, we are supposed to just act like they're not moving forward and selling product and cutting deals and doing production runs because there hasn't been a PR? (Oh, and forget the last one was a product release with a MAJOR partner which they will literally just collect money on?)
But it's just going to be noise and filler until this comes along, we'll hear bad arguments and mis-truths and just silly theories based in nothing except lack of what a business growing actually looks like. Just like when Walgreens.com was obvious but we had to listen for 9 months to how 'that was a lie' and 'it's never going to happen', and well, look what happened, it came out in the industry standard timeframe.
Well, I come on to be entertained and just read filler, so I guess more bad ones are coming...wait for it...
Lol, I know, right? It's pretty hard to miss that someone has been sitting on the bid for more than a week accumulating 14 million shares. So any sells have been one man's buy, who is EASILY going to make thousands of dollars (I'd say at LEAST 10K). Good, patient approach, and it'll pay off. But laughing at those 'getting ready', lol, THAT'S actually funnier! A little Business 101 will tell why accumulating at this point is actually a really good idea. To say otherwise would be INCREDIBLY ignorant of me to suggest...
I'm sure more half, partial, incomplete, and even just BAD arguments will follow saying why it's not a good idea, but I venture to say those aren't based on having ANY experience in how a company actually grows and how these practices actually work...
Wait for them...
Funny, because this is actually REALLY easy to make money on...like, Kindergarten easy. And I wouldn't worry about 'unaudited' financials when we have much more information then just 'they were promised'. I especially am not worried about it when I see lies pushed for so hard they actually counter all of the ACTUAL wisdom at hand.
We were told Walgreens.com was a lie; clearly not.
Then we're told they only stock 36; LOL, not if you know how Internet sales work, especially for larger retailers.
And then there are the fake 'promotions' that we still have yet to see a link to, and if course the false 'insiders' claim, even though people are sitting on the bid accumulating, and we haven't see the massive 'dump' that keeps getting claimed. Moreover we've heard about Ray selling converted shares for months that WEREN'T EVEN CONVERTED, just furthering the bad research that goes into statements like this.
I'm sure more bad follow-ups are on the way, like maybe a mis-read report, but I'll stick with the actual facts, like Walgreens.com for a full quarter, not to mention more, are on this next quarterly, and I don't know, I guess I'll have to keep changing my 'on the MMJ bandwagon' argument since they're one of the ones who are ACTUALLY, VERIFIABLY releasing a product with a major partner. Oh, and still know that it's a foot in the door to start and know their root model stayed the same, so really stretching to make this somehow negative (though I'm sure it will be badly tried).
I'll agree with fox on one point, over promises by the now COO. But too early to say they aren't being worked on, that's the world's foolish to say. But if you're aware of industry timeframes on these practices (any actual businessman would be), you'll know they're pretty much right in line with what happens in it. That's why I'm not phased by over-eager announcements, and liking the way the new CEO is handling information that should yet be divulged, though there are some OBVIOUS indicators as to how well they are doing. To say they're not is not just a lie, it's not information ANYONE who's not in their company can make an assessment on. No one.
Bottom line, buy 2 million at this level, show some patience, and you WILL make money. Easily. Mark it. Minimum $1000. So simple.