"
It cost money to make money selling retail."
A rather familiar cliche.
Q. I wonder if you, or anyone for that matter, can shed some light on the material below?
Item : 2.3 Cash flows from loans to other entities -131
i.e. $131,000
Q. Who to and what for?
ANDItem : 7.2 Aggregate amount of cash flow from loans to these parties included in item 2.3
Q. Why does that item contain no entry?
Q. If, that loan had been made to a related party, then why is not listed as such?
They receive $428k in receipts from customers. And they
loan $131,000 out to some, as yet, unidentified party.
ANDItem : 9.1 Research and development 1,000 i.e. $1,000,000
Q. Why be giving this money away in at time when you are losing money?
Q. And why is the R&D budget allocated to only one avenue?
They make $428,000 in revenue and they send $1,000,000 for a research program - staggering.
ANDItem : 9.3 Advertising and marketing 40 i.e. $40,000
Q. Why such a small amount on advertising and marketing? Any wonder that has only been 428k in sales?
So ... between loans to other parties and research ($1,131,000) they can only find $40,000 advertising and marketing?
ANDItem : 4.6 Cash and cash equivalents at end of quarter 6,988 i.e. $6,988,000
Q. If the current pattern of this quarterly were replicated for ... say ... the next 4 quarterlies - who would be the biggest beneficiaries of the remaining $6,988.000?
Given the bank balance it seems rather odd that $862,000 was acquired via the issue of convertible notes?
Observations1. Whilst this quarterly speaks for itself and hardly requires any detailed debate - I wonder if there's anyone posting here that can still find a way to support this quarterly in particular and the decision making of the company, generally?
2. It seems to me that it is the same pattern of decision making that is reflected in previous financial reports.
3. The recipient of the $131,000 worth of loans ought to have been identified - question is why hasn't that been noted?
4. What's the old saying, "..
fool me once ... shame on you, fool me twice ... shame on me!"
5. I see that another poster is going to make some enquiries on the apparent disparity between items 2.3 and 7.2 - that, in my view, is a line of enquiry that is well worth pursuing.
6. I appreciate that some the pro posters may have disappeared but I believe that we actually need them here on the CGB thread. It has been my observation that what tends to happen is that they (previous posters holders) disappear and the share register turns over and who does that ultimately benefit?
n.b
@jgreen31 "
How do expenses compare?"
You should have a look (APH) - the loans to other entities and admin costs - that might be a good place to start!
