I think I have this figured out and Heed is doing a great job trying to get ahead of this for the company and investors, as he probably already knows with his connections with Les and Paul what I have figured out.
So, overseas partners are ordering direct from the factory and not from vtcq. What does that do to the revenue trail. Well, the revenue comes to the manufacture. They aren't going to transfer all of the purchase amount into a vtcq bank account, they are going to kick back to vtcq the amount minus vtcq's cost. That cuts the top line even more than vtcq not getting a piece of the retail pricing from the distributors. That's why it will have minimal impact on the top line, which Heed has alerted us to. Ouch!
I am speculating here, but I believe it all went sideways because the distributors probably want to pay net 30, or something further out, and vtcq/mcig probably wants additional time to pay the factory because they need to ensure the funds are in the bank (They are likely on a net 30 or something for orders they place directly.), so let's say net 60 or 90, and the factor says,"Um, no. the only way we can do this is if vtcq pays net 30 from the date of order."
And vtcq/mcig says, "We can't do that. What if we just have the distributors order direct from you at our pricing to them and you kick us back the difference."
Factory agrees and there you en lies the problem with revenue growth.
So,this also begs the question, is vtcq simply re branding this juice that is really someone else's product? Would follow their current business model. Hmmmmm. Maybe this has been mcig's and vtcq's business model all along.
Great job to Heed for getting ahead of this one.....buy buy buy.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
