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.
Gains will be given up until audit released. Trough until that time.
Actually, the PL is relevant in that the CEO announced it existed. If it shoud prove not to be, then it exposes an example of what is likely a pattern with the CEO. If true, then great for all holders. HEXA change will honestly make little difference. Name change or not, the market needs to see performance and execution.
For you to claim the PL is irrelevant is irresponsible. It is as if you are trying to retcon the ONCI narrative.
Thank you for Sifthouse link. That it exists is a good first step in the possibility of a cannabis related arm to ONCI.
In response to your comment on Pharrell...
"As for Pharrel Protection; I would be just like them I wouldn't want the Harassment that has came on other Companies who do business with ONCI: Either you trust Steve or you Don't"
First, there has been a little more than a little shadiness to question trust in this CEO. Second, Regardless of desire to shield shareholder harrassment, there should be some web presence of such a company even existing. Unless Pharrell is an alias, which would refer back to the shadiness mentioned above.
Just not seeing a sticky that says: link to Pharrell Protection.
Just not seeing a sticky that says: link to Sifthouse, LLC
Just not seeing material data to show that these entities exist.
Again with your response as with each one before, you cannot in your reply produce the link to verify either web presence or government registration of these entities.
The company still bears the burden of proof to their existence.
Not links to file complaint, links to verify the entities Sifthouse and Pharrell Protection.
Whether SEC involved is irrelevant to posters saying it is available "with a little DD" and then being completely unable to share/produce the simple DD they used.
Please post a link to your DD to show that it is real.
My thought is that you can produce nothing and will tell me it is my responsibility to find something that cannot be found.
File today's news in the "par for the course" file.
Shocker...management not submitting information to accountants in a timely fashion, accountant not wanting to take this client due to extreme liability they impose.
These crooks and jokers are the shadiest and perhaps smartest group of loons in publicly traded business sphere.
umm...I'm not sure if you've been on the internet lately, but trolls are ubiquitous.
There is no discrimination of valuable vs. worthless commodotiy to a troll.
Trolls troll to troll, end of story. Good, bad, or otherwise they are here. It implies nothing of the value of this company.
If there is no news and it appears ONCI is floundering, there could be too much downward momentum with name change. Likely scenarios would be: continued downward share price trend following HEXA name change, that it continues drop so far as ONCI that HEXA change struggles to bring back to even, or both events happen and the company is forced to hibernate until some new scam and shell can be concocted.
Essentially, I believe the name change is a rather non-event - it all comes down to company performance ... VERIFIED COMPANY PERFORMANCE
Aw man... no audit again today... (insert sad face here)
I don't advocate lawsuit.
I just want to see a skillful businessman demonstrate proper execution moving forward. This includes accountability of mistakes to shareholders and transparency with success moving forward.
The biggest issue I currently have is how has a Bizright previous executive sat on Sugarmade's board for the whole year and not been brought to task on Bizright vs. BZRTH revenue recognition?
I believe there are few on this particular board that are arbitrarily posting negative info or harmful sentiment to the company.
It is more simply a question of further accountability from a CEO whose initial announcements have proven flawed. Ultimately, it is a simple discussion: Was there intent to mislead investors, or was it simply a poorly executed business deal whereby BizRight gained distribution and exposure without having to forfeit revenue brought forth by Sugarmade's logistical intervention?
I hope that it turns out to be the latter. Not that I want the CEO making foolish business dealings, but I would rather he make a mistake and own it than to try to double cross shareholders.
If it is simply timing of BizRight/BZRTH deal, then a further question is that once these transactions complete will Sugarmade retain revenue in addition to shared valuation of company from the inception of dealings relative to shares and monetary compensation for agreements and acquisitions.
You see, not negative, just a few simple questions.
But will revenue be recognized retroactively, or only current moving forward?
If the latter, then the CEO is responsible for inking a deal that yielded a loss of 1 years revenue potential while BizRight received compensation ($2M plus shares) and shareholders watched company value (per share price) fall. To me that certainly doesn't seem like the operations strategy of a company that has their crap together.
Further, the addition of BizRight founder to Sugarmade Board of Directors following the deal, but to our knowledge, subsequent to the discovery of inability for revenue recognition and existence of BZRTH all seems way too shady to me.
From the initial announcement 8-K Dec 14, 2017:
110% by May 1?????
Quite the arbitrary percentages...much like the Snakes profit margin.
The better question is what does all this mess entail: "the revenues generated under the terms of the Agreement with BizRight did not meet minimum standards for recognition under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles"???
I mean, if we are generating revenue via the agreement what "standard" must it meet? Is it revenue for the company or not. If not, it would seem BizRight in breach of agreement - with or without their cute little BZRTH bait and switch.
What's the over/under of audit release this week?
Incomplete answer. We have no idea financial health with or without audited numbers due to lack of significant reporting for over 6 months. No 2018 annual, or quarterlies prior and following EOY 2018. That being said, price stability based on what investors think should be happening with AMFE, not what they know to be true.
A restaurant may be full, but that doesn't make it profitable. Revenue generation is great, but if mismanaged or not appropriated to further business progression, then it will show loss and company will lose money. Those are the bigger question/answers I am most interested in knowing. I am losing confidence regularly as I am uncertain of the management of revenue and if there will be further reporting delays once current audit debacle is completed.
So is everyone else following this company. Good call...
The bigger question is will they be able to continue execution both on the ground and in the office? If there continues to be reporting delays, it will be hard to sustain investor confidence.
Sounds like he needs to do some reporting.
Kind of like denying a field sobriety breath test, lack of accountability is implication of guilt.
Agree
It's a shell game, otherwise BZRTH would have been discovered/included in initial dealings.
I am not trying to mislead. I am having difficulty trusting. So far revenue will be continually recognized next quarter. I as a shareholder am tired of this explanation.
The addition of a subsidiary holdings company that will need a new deal in order for revenue recognition is incredibly underhanded.
If you don't think the BZRTH deal is a smokescreen to hide the failure of revenue recognition from BizRight and Sky, then there is issue in analysis of company performance.
Regardless of share increase vote, there was report and guidance that implied revenue recognition would have occurred by the mid-point of last year (prior to share count increase vote); Two consecutive Q reports delayed to muddy the waters and calm potential backlash (IMO - the weather could not have been that much of an issue) and then when released showed no appreciable change in revenue!!!!!
Now another three months are reported with similar results and a new excuse why we are not seeing the revenue increase. It all reeks of underhanded business dealings where either CEO is misleading shareholders, or he is ignorantly signing deals that do not benefit the company. Bottom line, from initial announcements we should be now seeing three quarters of revenue with new MMA announced last year, but no result is to be found. The company has given an excuse, but it is not fully valid and really should have further explanation as to why revenue cannot yet be recognized.
so other stocks are down less (Hundredths vs. hundreds: fractions are hard), and our nearly half valuation from last year is a good thing?
It seems to me logic that is a bit flawed.
They are looking for evidence of the revenue recognition that guidance of over a year ago has reported/forecasted, not a lottery ticket.
SGMD isn't so much loaded with potential, as it is in the space of trying to figure out if CEO is being less than forthcoming with shareholders, or if he is getting wool pulled over by these agreements with outside vendors. There should be revenue recognition by now and only one of the above scenarios will suffice. Either way, if not corrected, it could mean utter failure for this venture.
maybe he meant hundredths and thousandths of percents
Since AMFE is in the publishing business, perhaps they could expand to print volumes and create a saga titled "How to lose gains: the tumultuous story of how AMFE will one day be a great investment"
You are correct-ish... hit 0.25 for just a moment, closed that day at .205 and has been falling to hold at current levels since. AKA the pattern of a smartly executed P&D
I wish they would stop posting Goldman reports as good PR. Goldman SC Research has yet to make a target it has recently predicted. Just a marketing scam to get eyes on product.
Yes, clearly. He has stolen investor money, invested in the unproven PlutusX platform and now using our money to reap gains from bot trading. It is a great scam, wish I would have thought of it.
The websites, updates, and PR is only smokescreen. Profit is being deposited offshore. If he is caught and processed, he will serve time and retire happily off investors dime once released.
It is both dastardly and genius - a fairly common white collar crime plot.
As I read that, ADTM made a pump to dilute shares and gain capital to use as demonstration money in the PlutusX trading system. Now that there is a trading bot system in place, shareholder input is being used for trading and gains that do not need to be reported to shareholders.
Seems to me a good use of client/service relationship.
If this is the new owner of Royal as per documentation, this company is more far gone than I ever could have imagined: https://twitter.com/aabmiamistyle
I don't really see anything of value or style in all the scroll.
I'm riding free from previous big run, waiting to see if anything comes through. I have learned to play the trades and only hold a stock based on CEO predictions when I have recouped my initial investment.
I told you earlier, it is a shell game. There will be new entities created every 2-3 quarters once shareholders catch on that the revenue projected is not being recognized. We'll have MMA or shared ventures with BZ***, Hydro***, or Sk** reported as a sister/holding company of the initial company which will be the acquisition necessary to recognize revenues over and over and over again until the diluted shares are off market and the company decides it's time to either fold or RS.
I wish it wasn't that way, but that is the pattern seen recently. Also rule 1, never trust a businessman. Shareholder interest will always be a distant second priority to his own pocket.
So, with share reduction, the next litmus will be fins due 3/15.
All tweets just white noise until then. A legit PR may help; but unless revenue numbers verified on financial report for period ending Jan 31, there will be continued lack of confidence in CEO or company.
At least that's the opinion I hold.
Perhaps sentiment shift coming. This is a good step in direction to show validity of heretofore unsubstantiated claims.
It won't be removed soon
Settle yourself. it is an extremely unlikely scenario.
I think the general answer with this company is "no", sometimes modified as "still no"