Finnish Valkee Ltd, maker of the questionable HumanCharger earlight device, has just filed its 2018-2019 balance. It’s the same as every year: Overwhelming loss and now again a sharp drop in revenue.
And as every year, earlightswindle.com makes it available.
Valkee balance 2/2019 (valkee2019.pdf)
Turnover has fallen by 34%, thus eliminating last years somewhat surprising rise. It’s now 637.000€, i.e. even less than in 2016/17. The effect of the US launch seems to level out. Good news for them: Loss is down to 594.000 Euro. But this means, that still every Euro turnover results in one Euro loss – as last year.
HR costs are down from 411.000 to 268.000€, and with (only) 226.000€ paid out, the question is who’s still employed by this company – besides its CEO and some salespersons.
Valkee is struggling to survive, as it did since 2007 – and now it became clear, how the project is “scaling”. It will exist as long as its investors are willing to pay. The plug may be pulled sooner or later.
That’s an enduring embarassment also for Interbrand, which really messed up by calling HumanCharger a “breakthrough brand” in 2017. The only thing that will break here will be the investors’ patience.
Over & out, as I leave this rather boring news piece to the snail media, Kauppalehti, HelsinginSanomat or whatever, for those laties who have not cancelled subscriptions yet.
Update 13.7.2019: Kauppalehti did as expected and translated this into finnish as “news”. Always welcome on my blog.
3 thoughts on “HumanCharger-Valkee’s balance 2019: Guess what?”
Valkee may have found some solution to the funding issues, as they’ve launched a crowdfunding in Indiegogo :
I just wonder how is this ethical?
Hi! What would be your comment to this?
All the best, Marcus
I would counter with another screenshot, which says all:
Additionally, this is 2 years old and was false already back then. Everybody can check it on PubMed: The last clinical study with the device was published more than 5 years ago.* Not even Valkee claims to have done anymore studies in the last 5 years.* And there is no other relevant/independent reasearch on the topic, as far as I know – not surprising, since the only reason this BS was ever “researched” was the marketing of this quack device.
Greenfield is lying, or he doesn’t understand anything, or both.
BTW: I am getting my hands on unpublished data in the coming days, just to complete my collection. If somebody out there is still interested, I could put it here.
* ps. for the likes of greenfield:
“clinical study” = research on the actual effect of the device on human beings, not mouse/lab/microscope stuff of unproven relevance.