Replies to post #81045 on Bots Inc (BTZI)

[GVInvestments]

Cash in the bank, No debt and more products. Slowly growing into a World wide name brand.

[JSee]

Hilarious.

[lesgetrich]

1.)

show me sales , I don't care what Rob Kressa has to say

Contracts are sales! When any company announces a contract they are announcing a sale of their product or services. The problem you have is that you don't want to hear it.

We went form turnkey solutions of pods to now modifying existing structures

So what?

- no barrier to entry and any one can seemingly do this . I don't see where the value is in this proposition long term nor is MCIG what I consider subject matter experts in the field yet in order to drive business continuously.

Here's where you're totally off base. What "you consider" is an opinion, not a fact. Rob Kressa has been in the business since 2006. Anyone working in this sector that long would be considered a de facto expert. There are no barriers to a contractor building a room. There are plenty of barriers to a contractor convincing a commercial grow operator that they have the expertise to navigate the permitting and legal complexity involved in building for this sector or that they can help with finding the right seed crops or environmental controls or staffing the facility or can get them the best deal on the paneling or greenhouse supplies or help with finding financing. All of which mCig is now capable of doing. Go ahead and try to convince us that these are not barriers to a vanilla contractor. LMAO

The bids you speak of, are these actual bids - what part of the sales pipeline are these in? When are they going to sign these up. isn't this the same issue we witnessed with Cannapods and the $40m qualified leads??

The CannaPod bids turned into the contracts mCig has today.

No company will tell you much or anything about contracts that they are bidding on since that would give their competitors an advantage. You're asking for something you know they won't provide and them condemning them for it.

2.)

so you're outright lying , you keep spinning this as Paul decided to do something else. CannaPods wasn't happy with MCIG and their lack of actually executing.

There is no contradiction or lie here. mCig decided to focus on large commercial projects and that made CannaPods unhappy because they weren't getting any immediate results. Yes CannaPods broke the agreement because of Paul's decision.

so we were led to believe that there was $40m of potential contracts already lined up

from your own words you felt this would potentially land us $10m all in all in 2015/2016

not only did you think this was achievable you were quite bullish that the sales would me quite higher than that.

Regarding my quote that you posted, read it again. I did not say they would get $10 million from CannaPods leads. I said "even if they get $1 million in revenue" from CannaPods, it would "put them in reach of their lower target of $7 million" (when combined with the other expected revenues). When they announced the CannaPods deal, mCig said they would get $40 million in pre-qualified leads and expected to close 10% of them. That's roughly what they ended up with, $4 million in closed contracts prior to the deal with Grow Contractors.

3.)

There's 0% gross margins in Q4 2016 ... Your explanation above makes no sense of course. Due to accounting matching principle there's no way they could incur costs that match revenues, unless they:

1) sold product at cost, which means the revenue is misleading since they gave they basically gave their product away (deeply discounted)

2) they exchanged product for services, which is what their parent MCIG has done , which you have admitted they've done this for producing a documentary. So it's not far fetch that they've done this again for other services provided.

3). they took a huge obselence/disposal charge on their inventory - meaning they aren't selling products annd goes back to answer #1

you can say, "you have no proof and I'm making things up" but there's no explanation you can give me on why they have 0% gross margins that can positive.

There are very good reasons to believe options # 1) and 3) were the explanation but virtually nothing pointing to option 2) which is what you seem to be convinced is the cause. Paul was deep in negotiations with Malecon/Omni during that quarter. If he saw the merger coming and realized that Omni did not want to have anything to do with the VitaCig product line, he would have wanted to sell off as much inventory and purchase contracts as possible, even if it meant deep discounts. In fact, I recall reading in one of the financials that Paul personally bought some of VTCQ's obsolete stock, probably at cost or less. There were also steep online order discounts available to customers during that period. Also, have you considered that $12,924 was held in reserve in their merchant account for doubtful debt? Isn't this reflected in revenues?

4.) Regarding the wisdom and potential of the Omni deal...

just like VCIG was a good idea to spin off right?

mCig shareholders have ended up owning 9% of Omni, a company that has much more potential for immediate ROI. I'd say it worked out quite well for us.

You say it's a good deal for shareholders and so we should be happy and shut up and take it.

Works for me and most shareholders. OMHE is up 300% since the deal went through. ;-)

But again, why would you a company do this.

Because they get mCig to do most of the work and don't have to share ownership with underwriters and brokerages which could be much more demanding on their growth plans and management structure. They also inherit a ready made market for their shares.

there was no bubble for MCIG, they had a product , it was just crap and it it was taken down to the correct valuation.

What universe were you living in? mCig didn't get to $.92 based on sales of their $10 vaporizers. Of course there was a bubble. We all got carried away on expectations. Once it reverted to a more rational valuation I encouraged people to stay the course because it was a legitimate company with real products and business plans which would eventually pay off, while you and others were perpetually using baseless assumptions and flawed logic to argue that it was a scam. We're still having that argument.

Unfortunately, you debunked some things , I can admit that...there's been some guesses on my part because MCIG is a shady comapny and historically hasn't been transparant and has been blantly lying to shareholders. Because you've fell lock n step with them, you have been wrong the majority of the time at least 95% of the time. I can't look back and say any of your calls and write ups were accurate. When you're writing your articles, you are quite haughty i give you that...for writeups that have been filled with errors and misleads.

Now were getting closer to agreeing. We've both had missed calls. My main issue is with your accusation that mCig is lying. You argue that everything is a lie if it doesn't happen exactly as planned. A lie involves intent to deceive and you have no way of knowing the intent of mCig management. Business plans change and evolve. The test is whether they result in additional revenue, which in mCig's case has happened consistently for three years with zero debt.

I've reported my conversations with Paul. He's been quite transparent with me and is the first to admit that he's made some wrong calls. In fact, much of his problems stem from a desire to be too transparent and to let shareholders know his thinking before the plans are solidified. You call these lies. To me they indicate a CEO who's willing to change directions and take the heat whenever one of his initiatives doesn't work out as planned. Yes, it's frustrating. But it's not dishonest.