Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Couldn't agree more. Thanks
Sandy, why were solar tracking arrays developed and why would anyone pay more for a tracking system?
Didn't Sandy suggest SUNW didn't have enough cash to keep jobs moving forward and predict bankruptcy? How is Chuck going to do a stock buy back if the don't have enough cash?
Fake news of dubious use? Seems like we get a lot of that here?
Actually it doesn't because you have no way of proving that it wouldn't have gone up to $3 without a CEO change and Nelson is still a board member. By the way how are all the other solar installation companies doing from a share price performance under the current business friendly administration...? Not good either? Hmmm must be something else driving the downturn. Jim Nelson's mediocre performance only accounts for 25% of the downturn in SUNW. So that means Sandy's analysis is 75% BS.
"In a multi trillion global market opportunity" definitely does not mean or imply that Solar3D cells or panels with Solar3D cells will be the only cells or panels in that market. If you believe that quote does mean that, I have even less respect for what you post and your interpretation of the English language.
With all of Sandy's rants did nobody see the potential return to net metering in Nevada under state assembly bill AB405?
I'm guessing you maybe got a C in freshman English? Nelson didn't say SLTD was a two trillion company. Don't misrepresent. It makes your arguments weaker which is hard to imagine
Sandy, there are lots of bankers with lots of experience in seasonal issues in the Central Valley and lines of credit are common in construction and agriculture. The rainy season ends around end of April in California. SUNW is not debt laden. If they are unable to renew their line of credit I might be worried at that time...
I'm trying to determine if you just don't understand this or if you are intentionally misleading.
If the backlog reported is in fact a true number at $59 million and the company has accurately never reported an allowance for doubtful accounts meaning they are able to fully collect on all their projects there is more than enough business in the pipeline for creditors to take a risk on funding short term cash needs assuming they can correct their gross margin issue.
For a part time blogger your powers of divination are almost God like...
Did you include the $60 million back log for 2017 in your thought process? It seems like you omitted it.
Just curious, what was your Altman Z score ratio for bankruptcy prediction?
This might significantly impact SUNW agricultural business
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/california-farmers-backed-trump-but-now-fear-losing-field-workers/ar-AAmKYeF?li=BBnb7Kz
What I was referring to was that Sandy indicated few of the SUNW investors are accredited. An accredited investor is defined precisely and offerings can be limited to accredited investors. You can lookup the requirements if you would like but basically for Sandy to make that statement truthfully he would have to know the household income for the past three years of each stockholder which he can't know unless he has committed a crime. The discounted direct shares that were offered on SLTDs web site required investors to be accredited. That does not preclude a company from stating they are looking for private capital and then eliminating non accredited investors who show interest from the pool. If Sandy were to do his research he would find that it was made public that SLTD was looking for funding. He also has no way of confirming the source of capital from Greg Boden. He has only implied without proof that the capital funding from Boden is from Boden's pockets only.
I am familiar with the tri counties area which includes Santa Barbara, I don't know any of the insiders involved with SLTD or SUNW. I do not comment on the investment worthiness of SUNW. What I primarily object to regarding Sandy's post are 1) massive amounts of research bias and 2) constant insinuation of illegal insider trading without actually explicitly calling it that or having the spine to do so in support of his research.
You haven't solved anything and have no proof of collusion. The truth is you have no idea the population that was offered the investment funding pnote opportunity. Your contention only suits your theory which is also called research or scientific bias. You have made many many truly unsubstantiated claims about this. the direct shares also allowed accredited investors to buy shares at a 50% discount which if someone purchased at the right time could have gotten shares for a penny or less pre split.
If you feel so strongly report it or get a spine transplant
Interesting you know the personal financials and annual income of everyone on the newsletter list to make that claim?
Any concerns about the weather's impact on 2016 Q4 project completions?
Your theory is only plausible if you can prove collusion which you haven't particularly when the pnote funding opportunity was made available to those that don't know Jim Nelson, Greg Boden or any of your other theoretical co-conspirators
It's only ridiculous if as a retail investor you are expecting more than 100% year over year returns from any investment.
What's very clear is the offer to fund the p-notes was also made available to people that didn't know Jim Nelson or Greg Boden or any of the other co-conspirators you frequently mention and that those who took the risk of funding the p-notes funded the survival of the company while taking extreme risk. This is very different than buyers and sellers of penny stocks in the secondary market risking small amounts of cash who chose not to fund the company. It's easy for you to say retroactively that there were plenty of people buying and selling the stock for $3 that would have funded for far better terms for the retail speculators but they didn't. And you will reply that it is because it is a scam even though in the long run Jim Nelson would have been far better off if he could have gotten more favorable terms. Why would he screw himself for short term gain that adversely impacts himself in the long run trying to run the legitimate company that is SUNW? Your theory is not logical when it comes to creating real wealth for the insiders.
Only accredited investors gave Jim money directly to use to fund running the business and to facilitate the Sunworks acquisition. Retail investors, traders and speculators purchased the stock in the secondary market at their own risk. Those secondary market transactions are between buyers and sellers of the stock and as such retail investors were not "giving their money" to Jim. Retail purchases of SLTD we're done with the knowledge that SLTD was a penny stock, highly speculative, had been issued a going concern audit letter and at best was a potential enhancement to existing technology that could be licensed to existing manufacturers. At present there is nothing to indicate that SUNW is anything other than a legitimate business that is trying to grow in a very complex, competitive and political industry. Retail investors can decide for themselves if the Sunworks business model is superior to other installers and whether the number of free shares are exorbitant. I recently drove from Northern to Southern California down the 101 freeway through the Salinas valley which is one of America's large agricultural production regions and was encouraged to see some really nice Sunworks billboard advertising there. They appear to be trying to grow their business. Jim's future golden parachute will not be worth a whole lot if the company doesn't grow profitably scam or no scam.
Now you're back to talking about Pearl again? Every retail investor with $100,000 to risk had the opportunity to do extremely well. At this point forward Nelson is far better off growing the business. Whatever is in the past whether legit or scam is in the past and 2017 we will see going forward if it is legit.
Just to humor you. If a retail investor not participating in the pnote scam invested $100,000 at an average price of $0.013 and sold in November 2014 when they figured out the cell manufacturing partner would not materialize in 2014 they would have a realized gain of around $2.4 million all above board. Seems like the pnoters didn't get the best deal
Again you never directly answer a question. Also BSRC isn't a Santa Barbara company they are about 90 miles away. Dr. Heeger is however a Nobel prize winner
What is your definition of "win"? Seems like some of the true longs are up 500%
Where is the information coming from on a daily basis that effects the share price?
Usually people that avoid questions about their arguments are doing so because they think answering honestly will weaken their argument which is typical of how you respond to every question asked of you. You know the difference between accumulated deficit and cash flow right? And you know to uplist to Nasdaq SUNW had to have positive Shareholders Equity right? And you know that going forward in 2017 accumulated deficit doesn't mean anything right...that it's about whether revenues continue to grow at at a similar year over year pace, that margins remain strong, that positive earnings per diluted share return, that the balance sheet continues to improve and that free shares are issued going forward with a discipline that actually helps the company...right?
Please don't respond unless it is with a factual number of how much cash has actually disappeared from the balance sheet.
How much cash did they lose since Jim took over?
I asked the question because I was hoping you would answer with a factual and verifiable response not avoid the question with opinion. How much cash was lost?
How much cash has the company lost?
So when you say...
"The difference with this one is that Nelson is a smart guy when it comes to creating financial instruments and marketing. He knew it would look bad to simply pay himself a huge salary. The way this was set up was to create vehicles that would allow the creation for nearly unlimited free shares and have these vehicles held by close associates of his."
It sounds like you are accusing him of being like the new Trump Treasury pick
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trumps-treasury-pick-has-a-dollar230-million-blemish-on-his-record/ar-AAlw8h3?li=BBnb7Kz
If you really want to help people with your scam/conspiracy analysis there are bigger fish to fry.
Coca-Cola classic was sold alongside Coca-Cola ("new Coke"), and the two brands had distinct advertising campaigns, with the youthful, leading edge "Catch the Wave" campaign for the new taste of Coke and the emotional "Red, White and You" for Coca-Cola classic. Later, the name of the new taste of Coca-Cola was changed to Coke II; the product is no longer available in the United States.
Point is companies make product mistakes and they quietly go away.
Actually it is a fair comparison. Nelson told you up front the goal was to license an idea to existing manufacturers. That's called full disclosure. Nobody was scammed. Is FSLR a scam also it's 52 week performance is worse than SUNW?
A news article is not a campaign. It was not disclosed until well after new coke dissappeared from shelves. Investors were not told right away about its failure
Coca Cola Classic is original coke. They gave up on the new coke version and went back to manufacturing the old. SUNW is not going to be manufacturing a new cell and they never manufactured an old one so they moved on. He's already told you that. Unlike Coke who just changed direction without telling anyone. You need to listen better. Does that make Coca Cola soda scammers? He also was very clear that the objective was to try to increase cell efficiency by enhancing traditional cells as a second generation enhancement. It failed. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding already realizes that solar panels are a commodity and that companies like First Solar and Sunpower who tried to differentiate themselves by investing in and manufacturing high efficiency cells have not fared any better from a stock price perspective than SUNW. If you bother to read their reports you would see that First Solar is seriously concerned about downward pricing pressure on standard panels. Panel economis are the reason it failed not that it's a scam. Nelson has told you over and over in no uncertain terms that they have moved to the integration side of the business full disclosure to not invest for the cell. There is no scam, people got paid, Nelson got paid and switched direction. Now that this year will bring this to close you will be able to evaluate his performance as a CEO in 2017 and we will all see if he is "world class" or not.
News Flash Coca Cola doesn't sell New Coke anymore. They replaced it with Coca Cola Classic without telling anyone...those scammers
How much should an employee be paid to generate $20 million plus $50 million plus $95 million in revenues over the past 3 years? If installations are happening to generate the revenue how is it a green energy scam?
I was counting the free shares in my wealth estimate
Reality Check- Nelson has not gotten "rich" from these scams. What he's made before taxes since the beginning of his tenure at SLTD does not even meet the current low range of what private bankers call high net worth individuals. Additionally Santa Barbara is one of the most expensive places to live in the United States and "C Level" salaries are typically far higher than Nelson's or what Tracy Welch's base salary was. Abe's is remarkably low for California. In fact, every one of the senior executives at my company make as much and up to twice as much as Nelson's base salary. The opportunity for him to really get rich is through growing this as a legitimate business assuming the solar sector is able to maintain legs. I personally don't think he's done a great job but what's perpetually bothered me about your "research" is that his real wealth opportunity is not in short term scams. Believe it or not I do appreciate the research you have done as it has provided an opportunity for thought but I'm not buying the conspiracies.