InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 112693
Next 10
Followers 34
Posts 14217
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 03/27/2014

Re: New-Old-School post# 64683

Monday, 09/21/2015 5:22:43 AM

Monday, September 21, 2015 5:22:43 AM

Post# of 112693
NOS - There are those who are going to say that Paul "answered" every question. Technically, he did - but several of the answers were non-committal responses or responses that had nothing to do with the question. Then the other problem is that a couple of posters interpretted his non committal answers as meaning Paul said "no".

LM: What happened to the two national distributors you announced you were negotiating with in your 3/5/15 PR? [See: mCig Inc. Receives $1.2Million+ Record Order for CBD Products; Finalizing Distribution Agreement With More Than 1000 Retail Outlets.] Is that deal dead, on hold or still in negotiation. Did those deals conflict with the new plans for sales channels or territories?
Rosenberg: These deals are good and we have more now. Online master deals feeding wholesale leads is an attractive combination for any sales side cycle. Large distributors despite lower margins are necessary also. Online (biggest margin), direct to stores (boots on the ground), and distributors (with call center support) are the 3 levels of sales and profitability that are drivers of total revenue lines and product sales. We are building out the central call center to compliment online with wholesale needs and leads. Maury's boots on the ground are driven from mCig wholesale leads and call center needs. This sales approach has yielded good results and as new product lines develop boots on the ground will be more useful for selling products that require a more face to face approach.



Only one poster implied that that Paul signed the two large distributors when, in fact, MCIG actually FAILED to do so.

LM: Any plans to perform a reverse split for either company in the future?
Rosenberg: No reverse split was discussed by management.



At least two posters state that Paul said that no reverse split would occur. This is not true. Paul did NOT say that a reverse split would not occur in the future. His actual quote is as above.

And, now, the dradle continues to spin Paul's answers.
"Prove that management has talked about it"

LMAO. Okay posters - how many people actually think management has NOT EVER talked about the subject of a reverse split?

IMO - either Paul has outright lied - or he is incompetent for not discussing sensitive business topics like reverse splits or dilution.

You guys crack me up.