Food for thought or discussion from the last quarterly report.
There is some good news and some other news
The good news is that theowners provided the company with money, the other news that it is repayable in shares (see Note 8 related party notes payable)
</quote> </table>
paid in june 10-june 11/interests/total/conv. rate/ nbt of shares
$ 1,045,806 46,799 1,092,605 0.0045 241,484,990 President/Shareholder
$ 118,941 9,423 128,364 0.0044 29,228,821
Board Chairman
Richard Staelin is a member of the Board of Directors and Chairman of the Board.
$ 102,369 3,367 105,736 0.0047 22,528,435
Other related parties consist of Robert Whelan, the son, and Janel Zaluski, a daughter of the President of the
Company. Additionally, St. Johns, LLC is a limited liability company, which is owned by family members of the
President of the Company.
</unquote>
These paid-in sums are repayable in 2012 and 2013 at a rate of approx. 300.000.000 nbr of shares so some sort of dilution is necessarily going to take place,but that dilution should not begin until the second half of next year.
Equally remarkable:
NOTE 15 – RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
</quote>
In addition to the related party transactions disclosed in Note 6, BioElectronics signed a distribution agreement on
February 9, 2009 with eMarkets Group, LLC (eMarkets) a company owned and controlled by a member of the
board of directors and sister of the company's president. The agreement provides for eMarkets to be the exclusive
distributor of the veterinary products of the Company to customers in certain countries outside of the United States
for a period of three years. The distribution agreement lists the prices to be paid for the company's products by
eMarkets and provides for the company to provide training and customer support at its own cost to support the
distributor’s sales function.
Sales transactions to eMarkets recognized for the three months ended June, 2011 and 2010 include $213,787 and
$1,273 in sales, respectively and $80,897 and $152, in costs of goods sold, respectively. Sales transactions to
eMarkets recognized for the six months ended June, 2011 and 2010 include $236,301 and $1,273 in sales,
respectively and $85,850 and $152, in costs of goods sold, respectively. The balance due from eMarkets was
$23,113 and $-0- at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. For the three and six months ended June
30, 2011.
</unquote>
If I read correctly, eMarkets sold in the 3 months ended june 30, 2011 for an amount of 213.787$ out of 319.093$ total sales which is 60-65% ?
So what are the other distributors doing ?
See NOTE 16 – CONCENTRATIONS
</quote>
For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, 89% and 75%, respectively, of sales revenue were from two and
four customers, respectively.
</unquote>
I understand from this that in the three months ended june 30th, 89% of sales were from 2 customers.
So with all the distibution agreements in place all over the world , only two are selling ? Which would be...eMarkets (for veterinary products ???) and one other distributor ? I wonder who the other distributor could be as he is apparently the one and only vendor in the whole world that can sell the products for human use.
As much as I tend to believe in the product, this promising product is utterly mismanaged. The payroll went up from 381,881 (3 months ended june 2010) to 506,936 (3 months ended june 2011. I wonder what all these people are doing for their money ? Inventing fluffy PR's, travelling around the globe signing deals with distributor that never sell anything. Hey, maybe they should visit their one distributor that does sell to learn ?
AI
