Added to the previous post. My feel is the CEO and COO are both in contact with an attorney so they can navigate through the process with minimal risk to them. The company only has to file three quarterly reports and one annual report for the OTC pink. Right now, the CEO and COO are walking this this line to the end. The investor relation person can't do anything at this point, include communicating with shareholders via emails, phone, message boards, blogs, third parties, etc.....
People may not understand what I am telling them but the fact remain that these two are causing many problems by not communicating with shareholders and the marketplace. Regulators are also not going to allow this stock to go up much without any company communication with the market participants or marketplace.
And to DD assumptions, the company is required to report to the public any material information that pertain to termination of partnership agreements, change in top management, closure of business units (to include websites), the sale of land ( major assets), etc... It has not reported any of this to the public domain.
The company is required to file three quarterly reports and one financial report for the OTC pink. It can skip one and still be OK. There are also many rules that the investors relation persons must follow in order to stay out of trouble. This is likely why Grace is not communicating with shareholders right now. The SEC rules make it very hard for her to communicate with shareholders, especially when the CEO and COO have not completed and posted the company financial reports.
Investors should also be patient for now....at least until 90 days deadline is up for the annual report. If they have not filed anything by that time, shareholders will have to research the rules for their next step in the process. I doubt they will want to test the waters of the court system. Under one assumption, they may be communicating with accredited investors while treating this as confidential information. I am sure they are looking for exemptions to the rules here. Seems like they are good at this.
The grow farm is related to the MJ businesses. The company has not given shareholder a report on that unit yet. When it does, the grow farm will likely be recorded as a liability and asset. Some of this will also depend on the type of lease agreement the company has with its partner ( the lessee). I would imagine that they will generate cash flow from a lease and the company's own products. Thirty five acres is more than enough for both.
I believe they bought the 35 acres but I also believe some insiders are trying to claim it as their personal property. This a one situation where the CEO started out with good intentions but the people around changed her mind. The company does not need the full 35 acres for a grow farm, some of that land will likely be converted to personal use by insiders. The land price is sounds right, 35 acres goes for about $500, 000 in Peyton CO. They bought the land. They also have a legit seafood business and MJ business. The story is hard to believe but I think it is true. They likely did not think this company would take off either in the beginning. Now they are trying to exit the public markets with cash, land and businesses at zero cost to them.
The CEO and COO are not trying to communicate with outside investors of this company. They are only interested in creating value for themselves and their group. Hopefully, shareholders and the SEC will not have to file a complaint with the courts to get a response from them. We are dealing with persons who have formed the belief that this is their own private company now. They have accessed the public markets and exploited small investors to start a medium MJ business. Now they are trying to force the company completely black so they can control it. It is very sad that shareholders have to deal with this type of mentality. Chances are shareholders will have to file a complaint with the court to get a response proper response from these two. And the only way they will likely do right by investors is if the judge threatens their personal assets through restitution and regulators bar them from the marketplace.
Pretty good research. Unfortunate we have to deal with another group of weirdos who are flooding the message board with nonsense. Where do these extremists come from and what kind of games are they playing with the endless radical posts. Does Homeland Security ever look at these board to investigate these posters.
Edit: Some brokerage firms are telling their clients to stay of away from this whole sector. This sector is very risky and one or two stocks in it should only be in your portfolio. This is if you have a good percentage of cash and low beta (risk) stocks in your portfolio, a small position in this sector should not hurt it much if the stock goes down. Brokerage firms have a duty not to advise their clients to invest in stocks that are too risky for them or they don't understand. Your broker is right, if you don't understand this sector or stock, you should stay away from it.
I would not be overweight in this sector at this point. You can only look at it as a call option trade with a unknown expiration date. The valuation depends on the corporate officers actions, the dynamics of the sector and regulatory risk.
Some brokerage firms are telling their clients to stay of away from this whole sector. This sector is very risky and one or two stocks in it should only be in your portfolio. If you have a good percentage of cash and low beta (risk) stocks in your portfolio, a small position in this sector should hurt it much if the stock goes down. Brokerage firms have a duty not to advise their clients to invest in stocks that are too risky for them or they don't understand. Your broker is right, if you don't understand this sector or stock, you should stay away from it.
Chances are your broker would also tell you to stay away from options also. Why? Because he may feel that you are not a sophisticated investor and by law he CANNOT persuade you to invest in complex securities that are beyond your understanding. If so, how many little old ladies could be fleeced out of their life savings by unethical brokers.....answer many. This stock is only for investors who can afford to lose money. Like options, it could generate a good reward for investors or it could expire worthless.
Get a grip. You start a screen name a few days ago only to start with the ignorance. I can see you a mile away. You need to grow up and get away from these sexual complexes before they cause you great harm. Learn to forgive and love someone for once in your life. I feel your pain. It is your business what you do to others. I am not judging you one way or the other.
The conversation has already degraded to ignorance. You really need to stop trying promote your unconscious sadist sexual desires for others on this message board. This is what I think. Me, I normally stay out of others business and unusual sex lives..... Sreen name: ikillgaysseeme. really who is the mental case here.
I don't know why you think posting derogatory remarks about groups via screen names is OK here. "Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class." The screen name "ikillgaysseeme" constitutes the lead to a hate crime.
I also think he is referring to those who are not really shareholders of this company. Right now we are having a shareholder meeting on this board and the company officers are not participating in it. Send your vote by email to the company... for or against the CEO or COO. Remember this, anyone of us can run for these positions through a proxy vote.
"I certainly have because of what I have learned from this experience." Well this is a OTC market learning experience. The problem has nothing to do with concept holdings companies. It to do with people who view small investors investing in the OTC markets as weak and inexperienced. This is how the CEO and COO view outside shareholders of this company. Both believe they can take public investors money and start businesses to collect salaries without giving outside shareholders a return on their investments. I say let us have a shareholders meeting and a vote to determine which one should go at this point. So far, only the CEO voted for the COO not shareholders. Let us start the vote through a email campaign to the company. Yes or no for the CEO and COO staying with the company. This is our right.
Well, you need to ask yourself this question: Why would two rational people decide to not post the financial reports? If the events they reported in the past were not true, it is too late for them to change their outcome now. Regulators would charge them past violations of securities laws. They would also be forced to pay restitution for any criminal activities and they would be barred from any participation in the markets. In the end, they would not gain anything from the alleged negative posters premises.
On the other hand, let us say that some shareholders and regulators are rational thinkers. Let's also assume that insiders know this and want to take control of the company. Let us also assume that they conversed with an unethical broker/dealer to accomplish this goal. What strategy would they take to accomplish this? My guess, they would go completely dark and they would promote a deflation in stock price to create negative sentiment for the stock. They would also stop all communication with outside shareholders. Next, they would make an offer to buy all the stock at a steep discount or issue shares to insider friendly shareholders to eventually take control of the whole company.
Rational thinkers will fall for this trap to sell their shares at a discount. This price and volume illusion is also from someone shorting the stock not from insiders or shareholders selling it. This a broker dealer borrowing from investor (our) accounts selling into news and rallies. Expain to us why someone is shorting 30 to 50 percent of the daily volume and why insiders are not defending the share price at all.
I am aware that some of the shares were for conversions notes and some were to start the MJ businesses. The CEO and COO also issued more convertible note during that time, so the net change in total liabilities was only about -$200,000. Between June 30,2013 and June 30, 2014, they issued about 4.5 billion shares without accounting for any increase in assets or cash. They also did not indicate any change in beneficial ownership of the company during this time frame. The shareholders of record also did not change much after the share issues. This does not fit into any logic, meaning there is no way a company can issue 4.5 billion shares in one year and it not have a change in at least one of these numbers.
The CEO and COO need to file a report to explain exactly what they did with the shares and the value of the received assets. Shareholders should not have to play this guessing game. Note too that this stock traded up to over a penny and average price was over .005 when the additional 2 billion shares were issued. This means that someone got a few million dollars off the deal if the shares sold on the open market. I guarantee the shares were issued at PAR or below. Ms. Ta and company need to start a communication with shareholders.