"He confirmed that there was no debacle except in your fantasy"
A: LMAO - yeah, that's why the actual outcome is the same!! Paul still failed to protect the intellectual property, lied about it for at least a year, shareholders GOT $0
No, that's not a debacle....LMAO
Umm, you realize MCIG/VTCQ conceded that MCIG and VTCQ would not have a claim, right? LMAO
Furthermore, the company believes that even if the mark is granted, it would be unenforceable against the company as the company had prior knowledge in use of the mark. And finally the mark has been issued in the European theatre to our partner as required of our expansion into that theatre.
He totally destroyed your ad nauseum claims that VitaCig would never receive any royalties from EU or Korea because VitaStik, Inc owned the trademark.
A: LMAO. Try Again. There was ZERO discussion during the CC regarding royalties. VitaCig will never see a penny for VitaStik branded products. AND FUGGEDABOUT that up to 25% BS. Try 1-3%
"There was no discussion or mention of why MCIG/VTCQ would fabricate exponential growth all of CY2015 – KNOWING THERE WAS A TRADEMARK ISSUE."
Answer - never said there was a discussion during the cc. But MCIG/VTCQ sure did mislead shareholders in thinking ther was exponential growth, didn't they. So, again - Paul lied :)
"In hindsight, the divvie shouldn't have happened to begin with."
"Perhaps, but we're all better off because it did. Those who received free shares and sold them made a nice profit. Those who kept them now own shares in a 41 year old established business with significantly more assets and revenue than they had with the VitaCig product line. mCig is significantly better off because they now own 10% of this company. It's a win-win-win for everyone involved.
A: Yep, am not the only other person who has stated as such!LMAO - nothing was revealed at all about Malecon. Win win? I don't think so. Not much about Malecon in the CC. Again, wasn't the only one who pointed out so.
"There was not enough information on VTCQs acquisition of Malecon Pharmacy or the MOB contracts; which was a disappointment. IMO, the mention of the MOB contracts constitutes a forward looking statement."
mCig is bound by their contract to confidentiality about any due diligence information they received from Malecon. Malecon probably wants to make an announcement themselves which will have maximum impact on the pps and its new shareholders. The MOB contracts were addressed in the transcript. They are being handled off the books as merely relevant information for shareholders...
A: LMAO - so, you are agreeing that noone has any information
DUUUH!!!!
"the $3.95 million in MOU contracts is considered in off-book asset. Before disclosure we've let everybody know that these contracts exist, but we treat them as an off balance sheet transaction, so that it doesn’t reflect either positively or negatively going forward."
A: Forward looking statement - as it ain't guaranteed and isn't historical
Quote:I need to look back, but if recall that the marketing doesn't even begin until construction is complete.
Wrong, look again, the marketing and consulting begin when the project begins Planning starts immediately and other deliverables begin with first shipment of materials.
A: LMAO - you purposely omitted my entire comment and took it out of context. I said I have to look back. YOU LOSE AGAIN
Interesting comment re: business model for construction Mike said they are “leaders” in the sector because they are the only ones who will work out a contract and build in x amount of profit in the cost of the project – and the customers will pay the exact wholesale cost of building materials.
His exact words were
"But the company’s approach is to design and build contracts, to understand what we did with Greenleaf, we design and build contracts in a prepaid cost-plus basis. This is virtually unheard of in the industry where you're identifying what the cost of it is, you're getting prepaid for it and you're building in a percentage of profit.
While you can look at construction and construction is one of those deals where there is no hedging your bet of making a greater profit for reduction of cost if you can figure out how to do things cheaper. Construction is typically a very direct finite cost and whenever you can get into a contract where you've got no risk in loss in construction and you've got a percentage of profitability built into it and you're being prepaid to do that where you’re reconciling at the end of every month, which actual cost was to what you're prepaid, it’s a very good deal.
All our agreements the customers pay in advance. We have no cost of money for these projects build in. As such our bottom line is our bottom line. There are no hidden fees and we make full disclosure with our customers. There is nothing hidden from them. They see exactly what the cost is and what our profits are.
We show them actual cost, adding the agreed upon profit and management fees, reconcile the advancements made monthly. Now in the particular case of Greenleaf, we decided they could provide us some more marketing and promotional expertise that we think is critical to the spreading of the mCig name and awareness across the globe, that we believe that there were some promotional expertise that they could help us in our long term, we've elected to convert some of that profit into a project on our quid pro quo exchange of services.
These are services had they paid us, the profit on this project, we would have expended to develop this marketing and promotion anyways because we need to do that.
"Again, he totally destroyed your contention that you again repeated ad nauseum that there was zero profit in the GreenLeaf project."
A: LMAO - Nope. First of all, my comment was before the transcript came out. And, No profit. you just wait and see. there will be no net profit because MCIG will likely include the Consulting fee as an expenditure. IMO - that's what mike meant when he wants them to be "operationally profitable". Again, just wait and see
The way Mike was gushing about the rolling machine, you'd think that MCIG was the first to invent a rolling machine. Hate to break the news, but rolling machines have been around forever. Philip Morris, anyone?
Tobacco rolling machines aren't suited for rolling MJ cigarettes or Rollies tubes. Look into it.
A: No Shyt Sherlock. I'll tell you what. the Rolling Rollies Rolling Machine is a stupid idea to lug around. First of all, most people smoking doobies don't necessarily want someone else to roll their joints for them. IMO, it's part of the customer experience to roll ur own. Are there some who want them pre rolled? Yeah a few. Sort of like those few drivers who want an automatic transmission on a muscle car.....lol.
Quote:Mike didn't mention the decelerating revenues.
Wrong again. Again you hear what you want to hear...
A: LMAO, umm sorry, but that's a fact...decelerating revenues. Two successive quarter. You just don't like it because it's a bad sign. Just like saying VTCQ technicals show the death cross. It's a fact.
AND the bank processing for Q3 was pretty lame. If it was corrected, what accounts for the bad Q4?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
