RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The company statesThanks for this Destro--i am lucky in the sense i have been trading in and out of this company but unlucky in that prior to the halt i bought in from 0 shares to 2,000 at .14 per share which is only $280.00 but that is actually quite substantial to me when my portfolio is worth less than $2800 so this is more than 10% of that total which is horrible in that vein.
Now i have not looked too deeply into this company and must admit that was and still is very bad dd on my part. Now leaving aside the tech for a moment i will address your second part first. Let's say that the proportion you are quoting is correct that the company was spending 4 times as much on consultations and salaries than they are in terms of the r&d that wouldn't be good that is for sure. I am just talking from suppositions at this point--now what if the r&d is all covered in terms of costs and part of the salaries you are referring to is paying all the research staff the head being Dr. Bhushan and his team that is really good use of monies would you not think? And that too would be part of the r&d so we would have to really tease out each cost and what exactly you mean in what you have said--i mean no disrespect or any conflict here just talking about suppositions and maybe facts.
As for consultations, would that not also fit into r&d when you have to pay people for their time and expertise in helping you develop a tech that you are working really hard to get to market--so would that again be a waste of monies--again the problem is how are things exactly divided and what exactly do you mean by these categories as you can see how things can potentially work.
In regards to the technology, i don't agree that it wasn't good and that is why Cam stepped away from this. I think it has more to do with any one company wanting to shoulder a huge risk or expense out lots of monies in the near term when their own business is going down--you simply can't afford to do so. What the cannabis industry is going through is a surplus of supplies and where consumers' preferences change like what is the next flavor of the month so what you have is a very fickle market with huge offerings and choices being very fussy as to what they would like and too much supply. In order for companies to survive with an oversupply is to fully understand what the consumers are looking for and being able to provide it not to mention when the consumers get bored to evolve to keep up to their demands. this has become a very demanding and fast changing sector very much like the tech one where you are constantly needing to stay ahead of the curve.
Sure you will have your loyal base and what not but the key to survival here is in fact fast evolution in knowing the market(s) you serve. there is no way possible any company will want to spend extra monies to other things when they will likely burn it in trying to keep up with a potentially super fickle market in terms of recreational usage--this is going to be a huge challenge for all fo the recreational providers and something i have been reading continuously as to the so called cannabis 2.0--it is a huge problem that needs the players on top of the ball not to lose providing to those they look to garner business from--quite different than the medical front the recreational one is going to be very challenging and stressful for those playing a role in it. That is what i strongly believe is the problem not the tech itself although it will take some more amounts of monies and time something as you can see not very many if any will want to touch when serving a very fickle and quickly constantly changing market.
This is why in truth i had said a consortium of players in the space meaning that everyone has access to the tech that develops it and are not competing on the level of being socially and environmentally responsible it has absolutely nothing to do with them and their product mix and research on it--but in any case, this is just the way the market is and the reason this has been suspended as to how i see it.