Posted On: 10/17/2014 4:41:26 PM
Post# of 56323
Yeah, its the devil in the details.
Once you release some information, people want more information.
The company doesn't need to give us much, however, it is in their best interests for shareholders (current and potential) to think a company is legit. I don't think FITX is near that lower level, just giving the range.
My issue of transparency, is that Bill and Jeff have filed quite a few form 144s, but havent addressed if its personal or business related. Bill stated that we'd have to pry these shares from his "cold dead hands". I'm guessing hes a zombie.
My concern is that we dont know who all is invested in Global Holdings, who owns 25% of site 1. Bill has said that its an "arms length" 3rd party. Arms length could mean that it does involve him, family or other management at FITX. The 3rd party simply means that FITX doesn't own that extra 25% of its own site 1. I wont even address speculated expansion and how shady that could be, as its pure speculation (although very coincidental)
Lastly, I do take issue that the company will not endorse or denounce articles that claim statements from our management, without direct quotes. For example, the company did not refute or support the "end of the month" claim. In this new Dr. Sam article, nearly the entire thing is without quote. In short, the company doesn't endorse any of it and it means nothing until its in quotations.
Then, take a look at Hemp Technologies and when we were first told it was acquired. We found out later that it hadnt been acquired and was being renegotiated. That came out quietly through the quarterly. Its issues like this that raise big red flags about trust.
I like the FITX plan and am not planning on selling. But these are legitimate concerns.
Once you release some information, people want more information.
The company doesn't need to give us much, however, it is in their best interests for shareholders (current and potential) to think a company is legit. I don't think FITX is near that lower level, just giving the range.
My issue of transparency, is that Bill and Jeff have filed quite a few form 144s, but havent addressed if its personal or business related. Bill stated that we'd have to pry these shares from his "cold dead hands". I'm guessing hes a zombie.
My concern is that we dont know who all is invested in Global Holdings, who owns 25% of site 1. Bill has said that its an "arms length" 3rd party. Arms length could mean that it does involve him, family or other management at FITX. The 3rd party simply means that FITX doesn't own that extra 25% of its own site 1. I wont even address speculated expansion and how shady that could be, as its pure speculation (although very coincidental)
Lastly, I do take issue that the company will not endorse or denounce articles that claim statements from our management, without direct quotes. For example, the company did not refute or support the "end of the month" claim. In this new Dr. Sam article, nearly the entire thing is without quote. In short, the company doesn't endorse any of it and it means nothing until its in quotations.
Then, take a look at Hemp Technologies and when we were first told it was acquired. We found out later that it hadnt been acquired and was being renegotiated. That came out quietly through the quarterly. Its issues like this that raise big red flags about trust.
I like the FITX plan and am not planning on selling. But these are legitimate concerns.
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
