InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

patrick

09/05/12 1:28 PM

#163721 RE: Whiplash_Investor #163705

Exactly. I think this one is gonna cost at a minimum of 50k
icon url

Doc Holliday

09/05/12 2:02 PM

#163733 RE: Whiplash_Investor #163705

One reason could be Walmart doesn't want them to say how much they are being paid. Company already said if they reveal how much Walmart is paying them Walmart wouldn't like that. (And when the company said that, they were ticked off at having "stupid people" as they said who know little about stocks tell them how to run a company, when they already expanded 100% and are heading across the entire nation.) And like I said before: They are spending all their time on expansion and have time for nothing else. Expansion is where the money is at.
icon url

OlafKjelldsen

09/05/12 3:45 PM

#163789 RE: Whiplash_Investor #163705

I discount such posts because they always leave out any discussion of the cost of audits. There are always two sides to any story and when posters leave out one, I see their posts as unbalanced and therefore should be skeptical.


If you discount a post about audited fins because it doesn't consider the cost, then the flip side is that the company is aware of the cost, right?

Why, then, would this in an interview they already had a "team in place" and were hiring a financial firm to product audited financials and go so far as to list one on Pink Sheets, if they already knew it was too costly to produce them? Especially when they were diluting heavily with very little apparent commensurate increase in beverage company operations and while also paying to operate a race team?

It's actions like that which engender suspicion about the company's statements and claims as to what they are going to do.