The company routinely receives requests to verify, or deny, comments made by posters on iHub. The reason is that some posters use their anonymity to make statements that are either knowingly false, or contain half-truths, or are intended to be provocative, or based on genuine misunderstanding. It is not feasible for the company to respond to every one of the many comments made by posters with which it disagrees. However, one such question, requires a reply because of the likelihood that it will be taken out of context or misconstrued.
QUESTION:
“… and Takis is claiming that the SEC has had a previous investigation into WNBD. Is this true, or is he spreading FUD? I don’t ever remember an investigation, could you please clear this up on your blog.”
ANSWER:
The SEC has a big job. It monitors the activities of thousands of companies, investors, industry professionals and stock promoters. This is a never ending job. The goal is to identify persons and organizations who violate regulations, in order to protect the public. The methods used by the SEC are sometimes a matter of public record but also contain confidential research protocols so as to be able to gather an understanding of situations without alerting all the affected parties prematurely. The reason for this discretion is no doubt both to maintain the integrity of the information obtained (i.e. to obtain it unaltered and complete) and also to not cause unnecessary alarm or create the impression that the person or organization being investigated is guilty of anything, merely because information is being reviewed. Reviews of this kind are often voluntary, meaning that that information may be requested on a voluntary basis, rather than being demanded.
Winning Brands is no different than many companies in that it had been asked, several years ago, to provide, on a voluntary basis, confirmation of certain facts pertaining to its operations, investors and practices.
To the extent that Winning Brands has always had an above board approach to its operations, such enquiries by authorities of various kinds are not in and of themselves problematic, although they are time consuming and a distraction from ordinary business. The same would be true of government audits of financial records. If a firm makes an effort to represent its transactions properly, then it has nothing more to fear from audits by tax authorities than the time consuming and distracting nature of the exercise.
Lack of sleep sometimes india cialis leads to stress and fatigue. As the prostate gets bigger, it may viagra canada deliver press on the urethra and cause the flow of urine to be slower and less forceful. “Benign” means the enlargement isn’t caused by cancer or infection. “Hyperplasia” means enlargement. Keep in mind that zenegra does not look exactly like the order cialis overnight well known drugs such as mescaline and psilocybin. These aspects incorporate equally psychological and physical order viagra concerns. No futher requests were made of Winning Brands after it provided the requested information several years ago.
“Takis” will know best what his motivation was for making this post, and what effect he hoped to cause. Some posters feel that if they have a capital loss from their trades it provides an entitlement to SEC action. Others may feel that by threatenting to lodge complaints about a company with the SEC that they will be granted special treatment. Others may feel that by making complaints to the SEC that they can bring harm to a company out of spite or other personal motives.
Ultimately, the SEC is not the instrument of personal investor vendettas. It is a large, busy, dedicated organization that has an entire society to care about. It will act where it feels it is appropriate, based on information that it obtains from its various research protocols. It will allocate its resources according to priorities that it assesses in the big picture and will prosocute people and organizations whose behaviours are considered harmful in order to send a message to the community at large with its prosecutions.
Naturally, it is my opinion, the that hardworking people in our firm who are persevering to build a brand through all the challenges that exist in the process, with verifiable results and attorney certified filings, is a good example, not a bad example, amongst its peers.
I can tell you one thing, it is very difficult to balance and satisfy the wide range of interests amongst consumers, business partners, regulators, suppliers, staff and shareholders. In the process, it is always the possibility that someone will feel that they have not received what they wanted from the company at a particular time. Our legitimate effort to develop and build an interesting and successful brand is an inherently good thing. The economy needs more such initiatives, not less, because the overall effect is growth of opportunity for all.
As to the opportunity that Winning Brands represents for the iHub poster who is referred to in the question above, the public record of postings by that individual show a large number of entries in which the poster has expressed a desire for the share price to fall and that the poster has made profits from the company’s shares in trading too, not only losses. The often posted characterization that the typical Winning Brands investor is “down 90%” is patently false. A review of the company’s total stock volume and purchase prices since inception shows that the vast majority of shares have been purchased at less than 2 cents.
In the end, it is not the role of the SEC to reimburse traders for their losses where companies provide adequate current information, as Winning Brands does, nor to claim a portion of the profits that traders obtain. The information that Winning Brands provides to its shareholders is first rate by the prevailing standards for its class of security.
