(Total Views: 478)
Posted On: 04/26/2018 9:44:37 PM
Post# of 9144
Re: OTCMarkets #4474
OTC,
Seriously?
I believe the first sale denotes the first fruits of commercialization, which should be the 2012 date. As for your other timelines, I think from online records that the first day of businss was sometime in the 90’s. The current CEO’s first day with the company apparently was five years before first commercial product sale so I don’t quite get your point there. The existence of different management previous to 2007 obviously has no bearing on the fact of sales beginning five years later, and their only notable relevance would likely be that they sold nothing but stock for perhaps the previous ten years. Now you could try the argument that sales began with their sales of stock, but I don’t think many would consider that a product because it represented nothing but hype, with nothing material sold.
Scott
Seriously?
I believe the first sale denotes the first fruits of commercialization, which should be the 2012 date. As for your other timelines, I think from online records that the first day of businss was sometime in the 90’s. The current CEO’s first day with the company apparently was five years before first commercial product sale so I don’t quite get your point there. The existence of different management previous to 2007 obviously has no bearing on the fact of sales beginning five years later, and their only notable relevance would likely be that they sold nothing but stock for perhaps the previous ten years. Now you could try the argument that sales began with their sales of stock, but I don’t think many would consider that a product because it represented nothing but hype, with nothing material sold.
Scott
(1)
(0)
