Topics

$7 fig trees for spring/summer delivery, around 150+ varieties

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfehmi
I agree that it's better talking about Panache than all the negativity, but with all due respect gentlemans. I think it's better to open another post about Panache and leave this one only for James updates and related discussions. Besides, I have a young Panache fig tree and I don't want all this information to be lost once everybody start to post their comments.
Point taken. my bad.
Quote

It's no big deal to me, but it would be more useful to post about Panache in its own thread, since it will get mixed in with the other comments and thus harder to read about.

Panache is my favorite fig and it surely deserves its own thread :)
Quote

i'm cut and pasting my post to Panache thread.
meanwhile deleting my stuff.
thanks.
Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by adipose
It's no big deal to me, but it would be more useful to post about Panache in its own thread, since it will get mixed in with the other comments and thus harder to read about.

Panache is my favorite fig and it surely deserves its own thread :)


I see it that way too. Great information could be lost in all of this.

Quote

Hi James,  I am still waiting for my cuttings ,if you don't have them in stock, simply  write . I will wait till Nov.
Quote

anyone else get any shipment email update? 
Quote

Has anyone received an order yet? Supposedly Greenfin has been shipping for weeks now, but nobody has commented on anything actually arriving?

Has anyone actually received a refund? I have only heard of references to "I heard he gives refunds."
Quote

I had no problems at all getting a refund for my order.  I had already picked up most of the varieties I had ordered so sent him an email and he refunded the order for me.  I imagine the volume of emails James has been getting is more now than when I had requested a refund though.  He had asked that anyone looking for a refund put "Refund" in the subject line of their email to him.  Likely to make them easier for him to get to and handle quicker for those people.

But yes people have gotten their refunds when requested.
Quote

Today is April 10, I have requested a refund after having received no response to my e-mails.

I have read and seen the photos showing massive efforts to increase production to fill orders, and then of course there is the broken toe, and random explanations that things are taking longer than normal. Well, with all of those who placed orders over a year ago, plus Greenfin is still taking orders, then there must be enormous amounts of $$ flowing in. No money is going to pay the shipping costs so why aren't they hiring staff to answer e-mails?

When I get a refund I will re-post.
Quote

I had no problem receiving a quick refund.... James was very responsive to my request for cutting order refunds; I did, however, put "Refund Request" into the subject line as James requested in an earlier post.
Quote

He's going to be shipping really soon. I can feel it..
Quote

I ordered 3 trees on 12/27/2015. Nero 600, black Bethlehem and JH Adriatic. I haven't heard a thing about shipping as of yet.
Quote

I'm afraid this is looking more and more like a ponzi scheme by the day, whether intended or not.  
Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheASTrader
I'm afraid this is looking more and more like a ponzi scheme by the day, whether intended or not.  


Ponzi scheme means using new cash flow to pay out to yourself or initial investors. This is not at all a ponzi scheme. This is just a mismanaged business model which tends to happen in new businesses. The problem is further exacerbated by poor communication from James.
Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by livetaswim06
Ponzi scheme means using new cash flow to pay out to yourself or initial investors. This is not at all a ponzi scheme. This is just a mismanaged business model which tends to happen in new businesses. The problem is further exacerbated by poor communication from James.



Pure semantics.

Ponzi scheme means using new cash flow to pay out to yourself or initial investors  


Cash flow = revenue from 2015/2016 sales.

Pay out to yourself = previously undisclosed use of funds to build himself more greenhouses.  According to the advertisement, sale price was at cost.  There was no margin for profit to be used to enrich himself with expansion of operation.

Initial investors = 2015/2016 customer sales revenue now being used to expand operations beyond initial orders.  The money's been used.  Sale price was at cost.  2016/17 revenue must now be used to fulfill initial investors.  

Moreover, what's happened to the allocation of existing 2015 tree growth to fill cuttings orders for 2016?  Cuttings season is now over and an updated ETA has not been given. Did he just leave those existing trees' growth unpruned or were they reallocated to the propagation side instead of fulfilling orders.  

This is just a mismanaged business model which tends to happen in new businesses. 

This tends to happen in new businesses?  Not at all.  That's sugar coating it.  And this is more than just a case of more demand than expected and then poor communication.  This is not ethical business practice.
Quote

Luv is an Etna type. D'all Osso is Black Jack. Have a nice day.
Quote

We had the Ponzi discussion earlier in the thread.

(Wikipedia)

Quote:
a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources.


A traditional Ponzi scheme doesn't really seem to apply here, but one could certainly make the case that certain aspects of the definition could apply.

1. "Pays returns to its investors" ($7 fig trees is a "high" return)--No returns have been paid yet so this does not apply yet.
2. "from new capital paid to the operators by new investors"--Certainly new capital is flowing in as the page still offers for sale trees to be delivered in Oct. 2017.  If past performance is any indicator, these will not ship on time, but the offer of a rare tree in Oct. 2017 is surely attracting new capital.
3. "rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources."--Legitimate sources would be James' hard work to propagate these varieties and the investments he made in greenhouses, soil, fertilizer.  If the current trees cannot be shipped without the new money, then this could apply.


The classical definition of Ponzi fails because James is not paying out any returns, at all.  Therefore he is not giving the new buyers the false perception that they will make large returns based on the fact that old investors did.  In fact, the original investors are the ones complaining because they haven't received anything yet.  Despite James calling the $7 an investment, in reality they were more of a pre-order than an investment.  We will not share in his profits or reap the benefits of our invested capital any more than the original agreed upon deliveries.

If James starts shipping trees then we are closer to #1 being a reality.  But again, the definition fails, even if he is using 2018 money to fund 2016 orders.  There is no rate of return but a fixed delivery of what was ordered, nothing more.  This would better fit the definition of a "failed business model" than a Ponzi scheme.  In a business where pre-orders are pre-paid, the buyer takes a risk that the business can fail and their pre-order may be lost.

Regardless of what you call it, it is dishonest or perhaps delusional to take pre-orders for 2017/2018 if money has already run out for the 2016 orders.  Since we know $7 is not a realistic price to produce a fig tree, even in bulk, it is quite likely this is happening.  On the other hand, if James is going to put his own money in to make sure that everyone gets their orders, then all we have is extremely late delivery.

The very valid concern that w/o taking money for 2017 orders, James would have to shut down, is what leads people to the "Ponzi" term.  But since no one is running around thinking they got rich while being funded by new investors, it's not a Ponzi scheme at all but rather unhappy customers with extremely late delivery and possibly no delivery and a failed model.  Time will tell.
Quote

It's looking more like PT Barnam's famous quote..."There's a sucker born every minute."
Quote

I ordered something like $60 worth of trees knowing that I would probably get them but it wouldn't break me if I took the chance and didn't get them. I ordered figs that I wanted but were so expensive that I would never pay the price. Now I at least have a chance to have a few nice trees that I probably would never have. Looks like he bit off more than he can chew but has taken steps to fulfill his promises just going to be late. 
Quote

I agree with Dan above who put it very clearly! Just to add to it a little, this business model is basically a kickstarter with people investing in the business with no clear plan for delivery. From the get-go James said this is a shaky business venture, but that he would do what he could to deliver. He really should have been more clear that the $7 per tree is not a pre-order for a set product, but an investment in a business with kickback in the form of a tree, IF the business works. If this all falls apart, which I doubt, it is really on the investor for taking a risk. 

Taking orders for a product not yet delivered to fund current operations is not really all that rare, it happens in tech all the time. As a complete aside that is essentially how Tesla is funding its operations (caveat, please do not discuss this point as it would be off-topic). 
Quote

You are right--it is very similar to kickstarter.  Kickstarter has some rules though and the same structure isn't being followed here.  We don't know the amount of capital raised or how long the capital will be raised.  Deliveries are supposed to start while funds continue to pour in.  Contrast to kickstarter where a target is supposed to be met, then if it is met the product is created and money is collected.

Re: Tesla I agree we should not get into a debate about that.  But it is more of a deposit than a prepayment of the entire order, since they do not collect full price.
Quote

While kickstarter does have a target, it doesn't mean much and plenty of projects have gone on to use up all the funds and collapse. In this case it seems like the funds have gone on to create a huge amount of growing inventory. Eventually James will start shipping product, even though it might be at a pretty hefty loss to him. Cash flow modeling and projecting is the number one killer of start-up businesses. Based on what he has said though, it seems he is using personal funds to continue the progress. 
Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by adipose
We had the Ponzi discussion earlier in the thread.

(Wikipedia)


A traditional Ponzi scheme doesn't really seem to apply here, but one could certainly make the case that certain aspects of the definition could apply.

1. "Pays returns to its investors" ($7 fig trees is a "high" return)--No returns have been paid yet so this does not apply yet.
2. "from new capital paid to the operators by new investors"--Certainly new capital is flowing in as the page still offers for sale trees to be delivered in Oct. 2017.  If past performance is any indicator, these will not ship on time, but the offer of a rare tree in Oct. 2017 is surely attracting new capital.
3. "rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources."--Legitimate sources would be James' hard work to propagate these varieties and the investments he made in greenhouses, soil, fertilizer.  If the current trees cannot be shipped without the new money, then this could apply.


The classical definition of Ponzi fails because James is not paying out any returns, at all.  Therefore he is not giving the new buyers the false perception that they will make large returns based on the fact that old investors did.  In fact, the original investors are the ones complaining because they haven't received anything yet.  Despite James calling the $7 an investment, in reality they were more of a pre-order than an investment.  We will not share in his profits or reap the benefits of our invested capital any more than the original agreed upon deliveries.

If James starts shipping trees then we are closer to #1 being a reality.  But again, the definition fails, even if he is using 2018 money to fund 2016 orders.  There is no rate of return but a fixed delivery of what was ordered, nothing more.  This would better fit the definition of a "failed business model" than a Ponzi scheme.  In a business where pre-orders are pre-paid, the buyer takes a risk that the business can fail and their pre-order may be lost.

Regardless of what you call it, it is dishonest or perhaps delusional to take pre-orders for 2017/2018 if money has already run out for the 2016 orders.  Since we know $7 is not a realistic price to produce a fig tree, even in bulk, it is quite likely this is happening.  On the other hand, if James is going to put his own money in to make sure that everyone gets their orders, then all we have is extremely late delivery.

The very valid concern that w/o taking money for 2017 orders, James would have to shut down, is what leads people to the "Ponzi" term.  But since no one is running around thinking they got rich while being funded by new investors, it's not a Ponzi scheme at all but rather unhappy customers with extremely late delivery and possibly no delivery and a failed model.  Time will tell.


Quote:
Originally Posted by livetaswim06
I agree with Dan above who put it very clearly! Just to add to it a little, this business model is basically a kickstarter with people investing in the business with no clear plan for delivery. From the get-go James said this is a shaky business venture, but that he would do what he could to deliver. He really should have been more clear that the $7 per tree is not a pre-order for a set product, but an investment in a business with kickback in the form of a tree, IF the business works. If this all falls apart, which I doubt, it is really on the investor for taking a risk. 

Taking orders for a product not yet delivered to fund current operations is not really all that rare, it happens in tech all the time. As a complete aside that is essentially how Tesla is funding its operations (caveat, please do not discuss this point as it would be off-topic). 


Both comments are a maze of speculative minutiae to obfuscate basics.  This is not Kickstarter.  The agreement, as written in Post #1, was breached.  This continual revisionist recharacterization of a simple agreement simply serves to legitimize and dilute.

But since no one is running around thinking they got rich while being funded by new investors, it's not a Ponzi scheme at all

"Rich" is a highly subjective concept to hinge one's deduction of what is and is not a Ponzi scheme.  What is "rich" to you might not be "rich" to others.
Quote

I concede I shouldn't have used the term "rich."  What I meant was that there is no fraudulent payout funded by new money.  There are just numerous orders and none have been fulfilled.  I used the term "rich" simply because I wanted to draw a distinction between dividends being paid out and simply getting what one ordered.

I don't see the situation as an investment situation.  I see it as orders which are late.  Certainly, I don't agree with taking new orders when you can't fulfill old ones, but I find it to be different than a Ponzi scheme.

In a traditional Ponzi scheme the initial investors are appeased by receiving payments funded by new investors, which lends credibility to the investment as well as keeps the second to last round of investors happy as long as the scheme can be continued.  That situation simply doesn't apply here.  Which is not to say at all that the situation is right.
Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by adipose
I concede I shouldn't have used the term "rich."  What I meant was that there is no fraudulent payout funded by new money.  There are just numerous orders and none have been fulfilled.  I used the term "rich" simply because I wanted to draw a distinction between dividends being paid out and simply getting what one ordered.

I don't see the situation as an investment situation.  I see it as orders which are late.  Certainly, I don't agree with taking new orders when you can't fulfill old ones, but I find it to be different than a Ponzi scheme.

In a traditional Ponzi scheme the initial investors are appeased by receiving payments funded by new investors, which lends credibility to the investment as well as keeps the second to last round of investors happy as long as the scheme can be continued.  That situation simply doesn't apply here.  Which is not to say at all that the situation is right.


initial investors are appeased by receiving payments funded by new investors

That's exactly what's happening here.  How are you not seeing this?  There are several posts here, including yours, that agree that without continual in-flow of orders, he would not be able to fulfill previous orders.  Structurally, that is a Ponzi scheme and exactly what you described above.  

As for the question of how has he benefited: an expansion of his operation with new hoophouses, a hire of a horticulturalist, time delays allowing existing 2015 trees to grow out more cuttings than he would not have had if he actually fulfilled the orders in time--all assets in which he has enriched himself with from proceeds from sales of fig futures contracts.
Quote
Load More Posts... 422 remaining topics of 1,422 total
Reply Cancel
Subscribe Share Cancel