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.
I never was talking about that, I was talking about the predictions you did for Q1 based on PR, inside buying and other data. That was so positive, and back then I said PEIX wouldn’t rally because of this information. PEIX PR’s always seem positive and even without a miss on earnings (which almost never happens), they always drop shortly after it. So these predictions saying PEIX will now move up are worthless.
If you’re talking about expectations by the experts it might be true, but once it comes to the track record of expectations based on how positive a PR sounds, I wouldn’t bet a penny on it.
Yep, but the current and future expectations you did for Q1 where also wrong.
I told you back then, PR’s surrounding the quarter results are always positive, insider buys at PEIX mean nothing (and might be part of the stock incentive plan), and no matter how the earnings are, sp never stays up. Add to that that I told PEIX doesn’t react to positive market situations very much, and you got what the expectations for the upcoming earnings should be.
Yep, and it isn’t even a monday PR
If you mean the intro, it’s still there. You just need to click show intro on a desktop computer or in a browser on your mobile device.
“We're still waiting”
Funny: “Who is this mysterious "we"?”
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=148478321
What where the expectations for Q1?
"I expect Pacific Ethanol to beat their pitiful Q1 expectations, causing a big rally in their stock price"
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=148477154
I also recall you referring to great PR's back then and Insider buying being a signal for great earnings.
And what did it bring us? A price drop from over $1 to $0.63.
Souds like Flagstar Bancorp inc. all over again.
Kevin says hi!
“The plastics that Greenshift wants to create out of ethanol have limits on their usability”
You still haven’t shown where you got that information. A claim you made prior to mine.
Just lookup the patents. Your claim however about "The plastics that Greenshift wants to create out of ethanol have limits on their usability" isn't supported by any link except a link to an article about plastic waste in general. I don't see how that is related to "The plastics that Greenshift wants to create out of ethanol" Where do you read about plastics created by Greenshift out of ethanol?
“BTW, it's nice to see the price collapsing again.”
Might be nice for you, but most here don’t care. Since their play is the outcome of the lawsuit. Until then, these are just some small wrinkles in the ocean passing this large vessel.
“You know that I do research frequently, right?”
Yes, I’ve read your blog
“Well, the news about mushrooms that eat plastic isn't new”
Who said it was new?
You claimed: “The plastics that Greenshift wants to create out of ethanol have limits on their usability”
I answered: “Greenshift is focusing mainly on Hemp bioplastics. Which is more biodegradable then conventional plastics”
You asked me: “Since the company hasn't sent anything to the SEC in more than three years, where did you get this inside information?”
I answered: “Harry, take a look at the list of patents owned by GERS. You can find them in the intro of this ihub page. You'll see a lot of patents related to bioplastics. No sec filings needed for that. “
That already answered your question about the focus of Greenshift on bioplastics and where I did get my information.
You replied: “The last of patents that Greenshift owns is in dispute, and not just because of the ongoing lawsuit.”
You could see, since you shared a link to the PR about the patents being part of the lawsuit, that these aren’t the ones considering bioplastics.
And even if they where, and even if they lost these patents, it still doesn’t mean GERS main focus is on bio plastic.
So even though I answered all your questions, you come up with something new. Funny isn’t it?
Harry, take a look at the list of patents owned by GERS. You can find them in the intro of this ihub page. You'll see a lot of patents related to bioplastics. No sec filings needed for that.
Ballot, biodegradable plastics already exist and are being used on a daily basis. For instance at home I'm using Home Compostable Plastic bags, to throw away organic waste.
Also there are other products that can be bought that you can throw away with the other organic waste.
Also there are mushrooms that can eat plastics.
There are new inventions everyday, making it possible to reduce the amount of plastic waste.
Yes, there still is a problem with plastics ending up in nature and animals suffering from plastic. It will take a very long time for that to stop. Also, the problem is mainly caused by people throwing their waste in the nature. That's the other side of the problem.
But developments reducing the amount of aromatic polyesters in plastics are a great step forward, and will eventually lead to reducing the problem.
Hemp plastic is one option to do so,
DDGS plastic has a higher grade of biodegradability the conventional plastic.
A basic comparison of bio plastic and conventional plastic
Yes there are still problems to overcome, Rome wasn't build in one day. But these inventions, combined with the growing awareness about the problem are a huge step forward.
Yes, it would be better if plastics weren't used anymore, but I don't think that will happen. So to me it seems better if they work toward plastic that is more "environmental friendly" instead of doing nothing.
Greenshift is focusing mainly on Hemp bioplastics. Which is more biodegradable then conventional plastics.
Also has it got a very large growing market.
This site has interesting articles.
https://bioplasticsnews.com/2019/01/20/the-hemp-bioplastic-revolution-is-on-its-way/
I wouldn’t worry too much about people against the plastic industry. I think it’s more likely for them to team up with parties like Greenshift, then to work against them, because innovations done by Greenshift help reduse the amount of non-biodegradable plastics.
And it will take years before the amounts of plastics being used will be reduced. By that time GERS will already have won the lawsuit, which is a way bigger play here.
Ethanol plants seen curbing output on poor margins, oversupply - Reuters
Do you still think this is the time to restart a plant?
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3479457-ethanol-plants-seen-curbing-output-poor-margins-oversupply-reuters
Jul. 19, 2019 5:25 PM ET|By: Carl Surran, SA News Editor
U.S. ethanol plants are expected to sharply cut production in the weeks ahead as high Midwest corn prices and the U.S.-China trade war have caused weak margins and oversupply, Reuters reports.
Margins to produce ethanol in the Corn Belt have dropped to a four-year seasonal low, while ethanol inventories are at the highest seasonally since at least 2010, a glut that makes future cuts inevitable, particularly as corn prices are making production even more expensive; corn futures on the CBoT traded at ~$4.49/bushel last week, the highest for this time of year since 2013.
"Plants have exhausted all resources, and I think we will start seeing some real cuts to production," says Josh Bailey, CEO of ethanol marketer and distributor Eco-Energy, adding most producers are losing money on every gallon produced given the weak margins.
Relevant tickers include ADM, GPRE, GPP, PEIX, REGI, REX
Yeah was probably somebody entering a market order, or making a typo at premarket. happens more often. I recall one from very long ago that had a sell price of over 100 times the normal price.
Normally market makers should limit it IMO
Maybe they should hire this guy, he sure thinks he knows a lot about it David.... I mean Harry
David, Your link leads to a Youtube video you shared, not to a website, unless Youtube corrected the oil price for inflation, it isn’t something that the website you shared did.
“Spikes in the price of oil don't usually last for a quarter (three months). There are other factors in the PEIX price, but long-term investors can ignore them if the fundamentals are good.”
Then why would they make restarting the idled plants profitable?
And also, why was PEIX last profitable quarter when oil was lower in price then now?
You brought the oil spikes to the table as a reason why PEIX would make more income when they would restart the plants.
I show you the oil prices and peix profits in that same period, but I see no way peix got to a profit due to a temporary oil spike. So what’s the deal on that?
So you’re saying that reopened plants will be profitable because of an spike in oil prices that “might” happen?
“The inflation-adjusted price of oil isn't as high now as it was in the late 1970s, so there's room for the oil price to go higher, as it did then, because of tension between the United States and other countries, particularly Saudi Arabia.”
A low oil price has always been bad for Ethanol. Because there is less reason to use more ethanol to bring the price of gasoline down.
If it gives a reason to do something with ethanol plants, it would be NOT to restart plants.
This February article on the profitability of Ethanol plants gives a lot of insight.
https://www.ocj.com/2019/02/tough-stretch-for-ethanol-profitability/
Thank you for acknowledging that due to market situations, Ethanol production companies in general, and PEIX in particular have problems running making a profit with their plants, making it probably unwise to restart idled plants at this time, which was the whole point of this discussion.
Every company should have at least 3 or 4 backup websites running to avoid that.
That’s what I say, if you take it to the letter...but you and I both know what was meant by a profitable market. It’s the company making the loss or profit, but the market situation is causing it.
Maybe if you take it by the letter. But if you know that the costs exceed the income, and you know it’s the market that could change it, then the market is unprofitable for peix at this time.
In other words, there have been times that the market was better for peix and they didn’t need to close plants and had no issues paying their debt.
You may convince yourself with that, but you don't convince me:
To be honest, I would wait until after earnings. If earnings aren't good enough to make the price move up close to $1, a RS seems unavoidable to me.
PEIX Pekin Extends Credit Agreements with CoBank
Source: https://ir.pacificethanol.com/press-releases/detail/530/pacific-ethanol-pekin-extends-credit-agreements-with-cobank
SACRAMENTO, Calif., July 15, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pacific Ethanol, Inc. (NASDAQ: PEIX), a leading producer and marketer of low-carbon renewable fuels and high-quality alcohol products in the United States, reported it has extended the terms of its credit agreements with CoBank, ACB.
Pacific Ethanol Pekin, LLC (“Pekin”), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Pacific Ethanol, Inc., has entered into an amendment to extend the payment and covenant terms of its credit agreements with CoBank, ACB to November 15, 2019. In March 2019, the Company announced initiation of strategic initiatives to improve the Company’s liquidity and strengthen its balance sheet. The extension of credit terms with CoBank provides the Company with additional time and liquidity to help facilitate the Company’s strategic initiatives.
Neil Koehler, Pacific Ethanol’s president and CEO, stated, “We continue to make good progress on our strategic initiatives to improve liquidity, reduce our debt and to provide greater financial flexibility to pursue future growth opportunities and increase shareholder value and are pleased to be working collaboratively with our lenders to allow time for us to pursue these initiatives. This extension reflects CoBank’s continued support of Pacific Ethanol and, we believe, its confidence in the credit strength of the Pekin facilities, in management and in the long-term value of the industry.”
Further details on the credit agreement(s) amendments and related agreements can be found in the Company’s Form 8-K to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by July 19, 2019.
Source PR by Globe Newswire
Yep, but we where talking about what PEIX needed to do to get above $1, and you came up with:
“what would the PEIX share price be if one or both of the Nebraska plants was operating at half-capacity or even full capacity? I can't answer those questions, but IMHO, the current situation in the Gulf is a reason for the company to restart those plants.”
The question then was asked why they would restart restart their plants in a negative margin environment, and you brought up:
“A. The President approved the full-year sales of a 15% blend of corn-based ethanol less than a month and a half ago, so the higher sales of this fuel are just starting to be calculated”
So I said:
“It doesn’t seem like a done” (which should say “It doesn’t seem like a done deal” but I think you did get what I was saying.
And now your reply is:
“Whether the ethanol industry, or any individual company, is profitable, there has been a huge difference between the Book Value of PEIX stock and their trading price. Any effort that the U.S. Government makes to increase ethanol demand should close this gap by increasing the stock price.”
That doesn’t answer the question why PEIX should restart the plants if the market isn’t profitable. Also, how would you know that the increase in ethanol demand, which maybe isn’t even sure, is enough to close the gap?
It doesn’t seem like a done
www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-07-10/trump-defends-refinery-waivers-by-noting-expanded-ethanol-sales
“Since Trump took office, the Environmental Protection Agency has more than quadrupled the number of waivers it has granted to refiners, saving the oil industry hundreds of millions of dollars, but enraging another key constituency - corn growers - who claim the move threatens ethanol demand.”
There is a long way to go to make it profitable again, I think.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biofuels-ethanol/trump-intervention-delaying-epa-biofuel-waiver-action-sources-say-idUSKCN1U52BP
I agree. It seems better to me to make a profit with less plants, then less profit or a loss with more plants. Margin would first have to be positive with the outlook of positive margin for a longer time. That would make sense to me.
The previous reverse split (1:15) by PEIX was on may 14th 2013.
On June 6, 2012, the company was informed by the NASDAQ Stock Exchange that it was not compliant with the minimum closing bid rule and was given a period of 180 days to regain compliance.
In December they did get a 180 days extension.
On April 25th 2012 it was the last time they closed above $1. So it took about 42 business days for Nasdaq to send them the notice.
It now is 38 days ago, that they where compliant.
So if PEIX goes the same path as they did back then, they had 384 days after it closed below $1. They have consumed 38 days of that which makes it 346 day until the RS if they ask for an extension again.
The vote for the RS was on may 10th. Which makes it 342 day's for them to get above $1
It gives them some time, but they really have to make the best out of it.
Source for most of the data: https://renewablesnow.com/news/pacific-ethanol-gives-shareholders-more-time-to-vote-on-reverse-stock-split-350534/
That might be, but this will not show in the quarter results reported within 33 day's.
If that quarter is received like the previous quarter - from which I recall you where very bullish about the surrounding PR's and the "insider buys" - when PEIX was still above $1, it might not be in time even if the results are very good the next quarter. At this time PEIX needs to gain more then 40% to reach the minimum bid price requirement. If they again drop another 33%, they need to rise 117% at least.
A bid price above $1 is a standard listing requirement:
What is Nasdaq's compliance process for companies failing to meet the $1.00 minimum bid price requirement?
If a company trades for 30 consecutive business days below the $1.00 minimum closing bid price requirement, Nasdaq will send a deficiency notice to the company, advising that it has been afforded a "compliance period" of 180 calendar days to regain compliance with the applicable requirements.
Thereafter, if such a company does not regain compliance with the bid price requirement a second 180-day compliance period may be available. A company listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market may be eligible for an additional 180-day compliance period if it meets the market value of publicly held shares requirement for continued listing, all other initial inclusion requirements for the Capital Market, except for the bid price requirement, and provides written notice that it intends to regain compliance with the bid price requirement during the second 180-day compliance period, by effecting a reverse stock split if necessary.
Similarly, if a company listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market or Global Market company is unable to comply with the bid price requirement prior to the expiration of its 180-day compliance period, it may transfer to the Nasdaq Capital Market, so as to take advantage of the additional compliance period offered on that market. Such a company must meet the $1 million market value of publicly held shares requirement for continued listing, and all other requirements for initial listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market (except for the bid price requirement), and provide written notice that it intends to regain compliance with the bid price requirement during the second 180-day compliance period, by effecting a reverse stock split if necessary. If a company does not indicate its intent to cure the deficiency, or if it does not appear to Nasdaq that it is possible for the company to cure the deficiency, the company will not be eligible for the second compliance period.
A Nasdaq Global or Global Select Market company that is in the Hearings Process for the minimum $1.00 bid price requirement can submit a transfer application ONLY if it meets the continued listing requirement for market value of publicly held shares and all other initial listing criteria (except initial bid price) for the Capital Market. If the application is approved, the company's securities will be transferred to the Capital Market. The company will be granted the balance of the second 180-day compliance period to resolve its $1.00 bid price deficiency.
Source
SP was over $3 yesterday. It was a great opportunity to sell at a great profit and get back in today.