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'm still here following what is going on. There is nothing new about the recent financials that I haven't already said.
I guess that sums up your opinion on QEDN...not worthy of additional investment.
No doubt you can buy in trips again soon.
This is really disappointing news. I referenced just a few of the MANY references Bahnsen has made to Green Mine Solutions over the years. Now it appears you have discovered that Green Mine Solutions isn't even a registered company in Colombia. Bahnsen MUST provide some evidence demonstrating Green Mine Solutions is a Colombia company and provide some explanation as to why Green Mine Solutions was abandoned in favor of Green Mind Solutions. If Green Mine Solutions is not a Colombian company then this is unforgiveable.
https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2018/01/08/1285188/32063/en/Inca-Worldwide-OTC-Pink-QEDN-announces-that-Green-Mine-Solutions-GMS-received-the-INVIMA-licenses.html
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/inca-worldwide-qedn-announces-steps-to-follow-with-the-colombian-government-300467797.html
https://www.latinxnewswire.com/inca-worldwide-cacique-mining-fully-reported-company-otc/
That is really useful thank you. Can you confirm that Green Mine Solutions is also a registered Colombia entity?
I bet Green Mine Solutions is no longer active, after Lattuca's charging order and Green Mind Solutions was only created in the last couple of years.
I agreed with you that Lattuca will never get a penny years ago. But Bahnsen can't issue shares so the pennies she gets from this are limited. Until Bahnsen can issue shares she can't make any real money with QEDN.
***SIGH***
This isn't an article its just the Green M&A Solutions page on Bloomberg. All of this information came from Bahnsen. The website is listed as www.greenminesolutions.com. That website is inactive.
It is also for Green MINE Solutions. Bahnsen is not alleging Green MINE Solutions has any contracts or is doing anything. Bahnsen has been consistent ever since Lattuca got a charging order against Green MINE Solutions and now she claims contracts are between Green MIND Solutions and Nestle or whoever. Although no proof of these alleged contracts are ever provided.
Nothing on the bloomberg cite you directed me to states there is any relationship between QEDN and Green MIND Solutions. Bahnsen probably doesn't want a relationship between QEDN and Green MIND Solutions because then Lattuca will get a charging order against Green MIND Solutions.
That's not an article it is Bahnsen's Linkedin page. Additionally, it is full of nonsense. It doesn't say Green Mine solutions is a subsidiary of Green Mind solutions. It says:
Bahnsen referred to it as Green Mine Solutions, SAS up to and until Lattuca received an Order requiring Green Mine Solutions, SAS to pay any revenue it makes to Lattuca. Prior financials assert that Green Mine Solutions, SAS was a wholly owned subsidiary of QEDN.
Since this Order Bahnsen refers to it as Green Mind Solutions, SAS. My two cents is that Bahnsen is using the new name to avoid the Order Lattuca obtained.
I have looked for a way to check these entities online but can't find a website to verify Colombian corporations. I would actually be surprised if either Green Mind Solutions or Green Mine Solutions were real entities registered in Colombia.
This is actually a terrible article. The first two sentences are verifiably false.
I have dug deeper than anyone else. There is no DD that sets forth any contractual obligation that GMS has to QEDN. The silence on this issue is deafening. Notwithstanding that I don't believe GMS is doing anything, GMS has no contractual obligation to QEDN.
Still no mention of QEDN in the article. How would QEDN benefit from anything GMS is ALLEGEDLY involved in? Can you point to anything that explains the contractual relationship between QEDN and GMS, if any contractual relationship exists at all?
QEDN is not mentioned in this article
Its actually worse than that. Your right that she has shown some tables at a Colombian flea market. However, she reported $0.00 income. This means that she either sold nothing...not a single thing at those flea markets or the pictures of the tables and the product weren't even of QEDN. Like those are GMS's flea market tables and GMS received the revenue and not QEDN.
Bahnsen refuses to explain what relationship, if any, GMS and QEDN have. Bahnsen has also never explained why there are $0.00 in sales when she has posted pictures and posts indicating there are sales.
I am not saying GEGI is a scam. GEGI does have an extraordinary ability to make outlandish claims that never pan out. Said another way, GEGI has an exceptional ability to fail at everything it allegedly tries to accomplish.
1) No revenue since at least 2014
2) Projected revenues for 2020 were $42,705,000.00, as in $42 Million. But actual revenues were $0.00.
https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2017/09/14/1121226/32063/en/A-sister-company-of-Inca-Worldwide-Cacique-Mining-Inc-GEGI-announces-its-projections-for-2018-2019-and-2020.html
3) Around 2010 GEGI claimed it owned a patent for a solar charger for a cell phone. It did not own such a patent. Instead the patent was owned by a Genesis Electronics corporation in California and GEGI is a Nevada corporation.
4) In 2015 GEGI claimed to own a lease and mining agreement for a gold mine in Nevada.
https://news.yahoo.com/genesis-electronics-group-inc-completes-153000241.html
5) in 2018 GEGI claimed to own a mining lease for a gold mine in Colombia.
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/01/11/1287476/0/en/Genesis-Electronics-Group-Inc-aka-Cacique-Mining-OTC-Pink-GEGI-announces-has-begun-initial-negotiations-with-AngloGold-Ashanti-for-one-specific-mining-title-in-Colombia.html
6) GEGI claims to produce Sacha Inchi for a pet line.
https://www.ktvn.com/story/44684965/qedn-gegi-to-announce-the-production-of-gmsacha-inchi-a-real-superfood-dominating-the-natural-ingredients-markets
They had an opinion letter but it was moved to inactive on www.otcmarkets.com. At the very least they will need a new opinion letter.
What does GMS have to do with QEDN? Bahnsen has never explained what contractual obligations GMS has to QEDN. All that being said, Bahnsen projected QEDN's 2020 revenues at almost $200 Million and QEDN's actual revenues were $0.00. Please provide third party verification of the allegation that there are any discussions between GMS and Juan Valdez.
Yawn!!! Nestle...again. Bahnsen has been claiming that GMS (NOT QEDN) have been negotiating a deal for years. By the way, the GMS she was referring to in January 2020 was Green Mine Solutions, SAS. Now, there is a different GMS, which is Green Mind Solutions, SAS.
There is no deal between GMS (either one of them) and Nestle. Even if there was Bahnsen has never informed us there is any relationship between GMS (either one of them) and QEDN much less what that relationship is.
Why did Bahnsen abandon Green Mine Solutions, SAS and create a new Colombian entity named Green Mind Solutions, SAS? Do either of these entities actually exist?
https://www.incaworldwide.com/post/gms-and-nestle-agree-on-language-for-nda
There are no products...there are no contracts. Bahnsen needs to provide evidence of the contractual relationship, if any, between GMS and QEDN and needs to provide evidence of the alleged contracts mentioned in this article. She won't ever provide evidence of either because the contracts don't exist.
Eric Daalman doesn't seem to have done his homework.
1) He makes reference to alleged "Letters of Interest" that have not been made available to shareholders. Since they haven't been made available to shareholders they could not have been made available to Daalman for review. I don't know why he is reporting something as fact that he can't verify.
2) He states that QEDN acquired all of the assets of the La Palmichala Mine. We know that isn't true because QEDN has had $0.00 in revenue since at least 2014. Furthermore, no records documenting the transaction have been made available to shareholders and that means not available to Daalman either.
3) He states QEDN "invested" with GMS...WE know that isn't true because QEDN hasn't had any revenue since at least 2014.
There is a lot more in this article that demonstrates the questionable journalistic skills of Mr. Daalman.
I don't believe that is what the SEC Rule says though right? Doesn't the SEC Rule require current and publicly available information?
I guess we will see.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-212
Remember when QEDN projected 2021 cashflow at $1.4 Billion???? I posted the below from QEDN's blog as a reminder. Instead of $1.4 Billion QEDN is on target for $0.00. QEDN is like that story...The Boy That Cried Wolf. I am still waiting for something Bahnsen has projected or predicted to actually come true.
https://www.incaworldwide.com/post/2017/04/27/inca-worldwide-qednqed-connect-inc-releases-new-projections
I am interested to see how things go after 9/26. You are hearing that the Market Makers are interpreting the new SEC Rules requirement to have current financials as being satisfied if OTC lists the issuer as pink limited. You are also hearing that OTC believes it has some obligation to determine whether financials are current but certainly has no obligation to audit financials. So if OTC says financials are at list limited then OTC will be publishing quotes because the Market Makers will be publishing quotes.
If this is the way it works it is still a very broken system. It doesn't seem like OTC would have much incentive to remove an obviously misstated financial to inactive. It wouldn't surprise me at all though if QEDN is still trading despite not having current financials. I suppose any of us could take that up with the SEC or the OTC.
I appreciate your input today. As I understand it, you believe the OTC has the authority to remove the reports to inactive if they are made aware the reports are misstated.
Once the OTC moves the reports to inactive the stop sign goes up. Once the stop sign goes up you believe somebody (perhaps the MM but not OTC) is prohibited from publishing quotes. Once the MM's stop publishing quotes OTC have no quotes to publish themselves.
Is that the way you understand it to work?
This feels circular today. The SEC prohibited somebody from publishing quotes. The SEC said specifically:
I guess we will see. You stated the CEO of OTC Markets by name so you know who to contact if you think OTC Markets isn't fulfilling its new obligation.
We will see what happens on Sept. 28 but I assume if QEDN was still being quoted then any shareholder would only need to provide copies of the financials and copies of the Judgment to OTC Markets to identify that the financials are not accurate. Would OTC Markets still publish quotes for QEDN if they had copies of the Judgments reflecting the Judgments were for (say $100.00) but the QEDN financials only reflected Judgments in the amount of (say $50.00).
Which brings me back to my first question to you. Why do you believe the rule only applies to no info tickers? Do you have a link to a source with some authority to support that the rule only applies to no info tickers? The actual rule says it applies to issuers that are not current.
What??
I am not following you. So you are saying market makers will still provide quotes for QEDN and OTC will still publish those quotes? Why? Doesn't the new rule prohibit broker-dealers from publishing quotes for pink stocks that don't make current information publicly available?
Who is responsible for verifying QEDN's information is current and publicly available? OTC Markets website seems to indicate they believe they are responsible to verify information is current.
OK I guess we will see. I don't see how an issuer can be required to be current in order for the OTC to be allowed to Quote their stock and then Not Be Current and the OTC quotes their stock anyway.
That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if they are still quoted. How is the OTC going to know QEDN's information is not current?
Why do you say this? Do you have any third party documentation to support this? The SEC regulation isn't immaterial. The SEC regulation requires "current and publicly available information."
Are you sure about OTC quoting them with just limited information. The below quote is from the SEC's website. To quote QEDN the financials must be "current and publicly available". Q2 is not posted so they are not current. Also, when you compare the amount of the QEDN Judgment to the amount QEDN claims the Judgment are it is clear the financials don't accurately reflect the Judgment. I know we generally don't have supporting documents to the financials but in the case of the Judgment we do have access to the supporting documents. Will the OTC really quote QEDN if the amount of QEDN's liabilities are blatantly and obviously false?
YIELD SIGN STILL UP!!! BAHNSEN SAID THERE WOULD BE A GREEN LIGHT TWO WEEKS AGO
https://apps.dos.ny.gov/publicInquiry/
check corporation and type "QED Connect" in the entity name. It may not like you including the "Inc." in the search.
New York Division of Corporations is where you search. The entity name is QED Connect, Inc.
It was first incorporated on 8/21/2006 and has gone by the below names:
08/21/2006 CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION IX SYSTEMS, INC.
12/08/2006 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT GUWO HOLDINGS, INC.
06/22/2007 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT QED CONNECT, INC.
12/21/2016 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT INCA WORLDWIDE INC.
10/18/2017 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT QED CONNECT, INC.
That is interesting but isn't surprising. Have you ever noticed that QEDN never has the same attorney issue their opinion letter?
Good suggestion
Yeah, except it shows the attorney opinion letter was moved to inactive and it isn't replaced with anything. Why would the attorney opinion letter be moved to inactive? Can the attorney that wrote it demand it be moved to inactive? If the company/issuer refuses to move it will the OTC move it to inactive at the attorney's request.
I wish Bahnsen would tell us why the attorney letter was moved to inactive. It seems like you believe its because the letter wasn't accurate. It seems like if the attorney letter was moved to inactive then the financials would be as well.
The "issuer" meaning QEDN and not OTC Markets?
What does it mean to move something to inactive?