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.
Leaks aren't this large. 'Everybody' knows TPI and Eco haven't had a deal going for months. It's only Eco supporters that have been in denial. Sounds kinda like you may be saying I have access to accurate information afterall?
By all means, I expect Conboy to search the Internet for a name, call ICC-ES and reference the name, and ES Staff will type in that name w/o exercising DD yet again. No question about that. There are bottom feeders for the bottom feeders to go to. Look who goes to QAI for fire Listings. Eco was out of their league with TPI.
The bundles do, or so I have observed at all the PA and NJ stores I have walked into with product. If Eco isn't putting them on, then Home Depot is. Take your pick, as either answer is bad news.
Your website still references TPI as well. Apparently you missed at least one on the last clean-up a few days ago. Try again.
Maybe an employee of Eco can post a copy of the letter headed their way as of today? Don't know how it is being delivered, but probably the same method the previous two were sent from TPI. This time ICC-ES is getting a copy. All Eco Licensees are getting a copy, too. You'll know it's the letter I am talking about because it will reference "December 5, 2013". Hopefully ICC-ES has somebody on Staff who can read. Surely Eco will notify Home Depot......
Lightning may strike me for saying this, but there's a lot of hype around using Sitka spruce for guitar tops (and backs). Other woods actually work as well, if not better in some cases. Tonewoods are all a matter of opinion. Musicians are creatures of habit, and many tonewoods have achieved their status because they were good tonewoods and readily available 'back in the day'. Nobody ever expected them to be 'rare' or else builders probably would have gone in another direction decades ago. J45 will probably agree with me on this: Most listeners can't hear the difference, and most musicians THINK they can hear the difference. So, I don't have a stock to point you to, because I think the market will move on to other woods and get over this. I know this will shock you, but a lot of this marketing going on about Sikta scarcity is probably also based on trying to get maximum bucks in the meantime. Short of that, buy the wood itself and store it. Other great tonewoods are being taken out of the floors of old buildings and such. Definitely some investment potential there, if you have the time to track that sort of stuff down. Sorry again for the diversion.....we can't all be serious all the time.
For J45. Apologies to the rest of the Board for the unrelated post.
http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/professional-woodworker-video/wood-production-videos/MusicwoodTaylor-Martin-Gibson-Guitar-Fight-for-Sitka-Spruce-230416051.html#sthash.a2ZQ9m3L.dpbs?utm_source=7788I0317367A5R&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campaign=Woodworking+Network+Daily_20131105&utm_term=&utm_content=Edit
But folks aren't always willing to get the information copyrighted, as in this instance, and wave it around like a flag. I'm getting close to using "LOL" for the first time ever. That didn't count, did it???
Let's start an ESR chronology right here on this board that people can add to as things come and go.
2012 - Eco gets ESR-3255. Page 3 includes a claim that 1 gram = 1/4 pound. Makes sense.
June 2013 - TPI pulls the plug on their 3rd party program with Eco. Eco should have notified ES at that time, and ES should have Withdrawn the ESR until that was resolved. No action taken.
July 2013 - Austin, TX Licensee hands out JULY TPI audit to customer. Obviously a bogus audit.
September 2013 - ES Suspends ESR-3255. "Additional Test data to be filed before October 31". Because of the June TPI withdrawal, Eco effectively gets 5 months to resolve problems, when Staff procedures have a maximum of 90 days (to be in Suspension).
September 2013 - Two Eco Licensees are called and asked if they know about the TPI suspension. Answer - No.
October 30, 2013 - Staff gets whatever test info they were waiting on. ESR is re-issued, and re-issued with the fraudulent claim, yes fraudulent claim (look it up in a dictionary) in a copyrighted document, that Eco has a 3rd party program with TPI. BTW, ESR still says on Page 3 that 1 gram = 1/4 pound.
November 1, 2013 - TPI confirms they still have no program with Eco and probably never will, based on the outrageous claims Eco makes about their product, starting with Fire. So, Eco has an ESR, but it's worth less than the paper you can print it on.
November 1, 2013 - ES Staff notified they have been conned by the master yet again, simply because they could not make one phone call to TPI.
This copyrighted document from ICC-ES (ESR-3255) is now copyrighted proof that Conboy is perpetrating a product fraud. Hint to anybody that wants to file a lawsuit against Eco. Download a copy from ES's website before they take it down!! J45 posted the address for you already. A deliberate deception for monetary gain is Fraud. Not Freud, Not Fred, but Fraud.
Future? My guess. ES calls Eco. Conbody goes to Google search engine and looks up "3rd party" on the Internet and gives ES Staff another company name to type into Sections 5.7 and 7.0. Staff takes the bait for a 3rd time because Eco has paid their fees for the next year. ESR never gets Suspended or Withdrawn until June of 2014 when Eco has no funny money left to give ES. In 2014 Eco buys Home Depot and changes all the orange to red.
To get royalties, Eco will have to establish that they invented the concept of spraying borate on wood. Good Luck with that. It probably pre-dates Conboy's birthday.
Eco can probably prove that they are the first to make such outrageous claims for such a product, if that is something you can get royalties for.
Don't forget, whoever is left holding the "Eco" bag also gets the leftover liability and warranty. Can't imagine anybody wanting to spend millions of bucks for that. You can get that for nothing, anywhere.
Krispy Kreme might want the sprayers, if they will pass a sugar solution. I don't think there is a Krispy Kreme franchise in Fair Lawn, NJ.
Conboy is Conboy, but what should concern people more is the sloppy work ICC-ES Staff did on re-issuing this ESR. Eco had already duped ES Staff for a couple months by not disclosing that TPI had dropped off-line with Eco back in early Summer. See my earlier posts on this. The ESR should have been suspended then. Eco actually enjoyed an extended suspension beyond the standard period because of that. ES Staff definitely not on the ball. But after having been bitten once by Eco's false claim about TPI 3rd party during the Summer, you would think ES Staff would at least pick-up the phone and call TPI to see if Eco indeed was a client of theirs again, or not.
ES Staff effectively re-writes building codes with these AC's and ESR's, and now we find they don't check something as simple and suspect as this. As I have said many times, it is good that engineers over-design everything. I am hoping this instance will put some pressure on ICC-ES to clean up their act in general.
Don't give up on me, yet. It gets better.
See page 2 of the ESR, Sections 5.7 and 7.0. My life is just too easy.
In both cases it references Timber Products Inspection. I just got off the phone with TPI and they STILL have NO relationship with Eco. Eco has again pulled the wool over ICC-ES's eyes, which is indeed easy to do, as demonstrated here again by Eco. Eco has a letter from TPI Legal telling them to stop all this 'stuff' they are doing with TPI's name and trademark, and of course, Conboy does what Conboy wants. Let's not let the truth get in the way of a good PR, right? In light of this (you're welcome!), ICC-ES will be getting a call today from TPI about inappropriate use of TPI's good name.
This is going to be the come-and-go ESR for a very long time.
"You heard it here, first!"
Is this what you guys call a "Great Find"?
And soon I will be able to provide more details on borate treated wood that has been seen at Eco's Colton facility in the past (light green tint, not to be confused with CCA).......wanna take a guess at why they might need to spray some borate treated wood with Red Shield? Give me a couple weeks to wrap this lead up.
Maybe this is what you call a "Great Find"?
Please leave this post up so you can quote it later.....
It's actually Rated before it leaves the mill. Maybe he's referring to the QAI Listing.
You have severely paraphrased what I actually said to the point of making it a false statement. Go re-read the old posts. Or do some more research on ICC-ES's website.
That is not what I said.
Obviously green speaks louder than red with ES Staff. Now, how do you stop other sprayers with their own cash from getting ESR's now that ES is going to allow topical coatings for loading? Since AC433 has been hanging out there a couple years now, there could already be several in the pipeline.
Load up your wagon, and stay tuned.
I don't disagree. I wouldn't go to surgery with IHUB or Wikipedia information, but SEC and FDIC definitions for TA were open ended, but at least gave a clear indication that within the duties prescribed by SEC governance that it would take less time to answer the questions than not to. Seems like the Total Issued Shares answer should be no more than 2 clicks away, providing the TA keeps good records. Then again, not all TA's would be equal, and it might be a challenge for some to obtain a quick and correct answer. Maybe for some, nearly impossible.
The gagged commentary was interesting because of the amount of overlap with the current ECOB situation. Sounded like they were talking about Eco....right down to the PR's.
Post #1451 from IHUB "Money 101" MB:
What is a "Gagged" Transfer Agent?
-A 'Transfer Agent' is a company's means of managing shareholder records, issuing and canceling stock certificates, and processing investor mailings. Some companies can act as their own transfer agent, but most often, especially with penny stocks, the job is outsourced to companies specializing in the business. Transfer agents are normally the most accurate, and often the only way of finding the current O/S, A/S, and float for a penny stock. Some will require a fax with shareholder details to retrieve the information, others simply a phone call or email. This type of transparency is desirable among investors.
A "Gagged" transfer agent is one which has been instructed by the company they are working for to not release information, such as the share structure. This is NOT a good situation. There is no legitimate reason for a company to gag their TA. It is almost always done to hide dilution. Without knowing the current number of outstanding shares, an investor has no idea if shares are being sold by the company. Concurrently, without knowing the number of authorized shares, the number of shares that can possibly be sold is not known either. Companies that practice this scam will often issue press releases, or other investor communication containing excuses for having the TA gagged. Unknowing investors will buy these up, and continue holding shares, or even buying more. We absolutely do not recommend touching a stock with a gagged TA, unless you are experienced with penny stocks, and it is purely a short term momentum play.
Maybe they are easier to reach after the coffee shop closes for the day?
You can always look forward to the next one with SOME of the Depot pilot program losses on it. I say SOME because we've been told on this board that those losses will go on for several Q's. Just sayin'
Just stopped by to pick up my mail.
At least tell them the rest of the story. Eco's QAI Listing is for a "Fire Retardant Coating". Today, FR coatings are only recognized in the I-Codes for Interior Finish. No recognition in the I-Codes for structural applications. No structural.
If you don't agree with that, instead of calling me a liar, why don't you go change the building codes? The 2015 Edition was just locked down this month, but the 2018 code development process starts this Spring. Five years isn't so far away, plus the year or two it will take for States to adopt the 2018 I-Codes.
BTW, where is ASTM 2768 referenced in the I-Codes? Maybe QAI can answer that since they put it in the report.
Sorry, I was asleep at 3+AM when you wrote your post. What was it you were saying?
I already have a lot of help. Probably more than I need.
A number of people did blow the lid off FlameDXX. It took a couple years because the 'billion-dollar' clout can go a long way. Even ICC-ES Staff was on board for a couple years, but ICC-ES COMMITTEE finally stuck a fork in it. There's something very important about ICC-ES and any other code report writing agency. They get paid to write reports. No reports, no revenue. Yes, they are a dot.org, but they still have to pay their bills and wages. To turn away a $25K+ report, plus yearly fees, takes a lot of nerve. I'm not saying they are crooked, but they are under a lot of pressure to generate the revenue that pays their salaries.
In a perfect World they are 100% objective, but this isn't a perfect World.
In the case of FLameDXX, had it actually worked, it would have been the Holy Grail of treated wood. Arch/Lonza was struggling to be competitive with Dricon, and the general assumption was that this was their Hail Mary pass (enough religious overtones). I was hearing the same sort of mantra from Arch that I hear in Eco PR's. My ears are ringing from the harmony.
As for how do you trick a Listing agency? It's probably a lot easier than you think, and I'm not going to post the methods here or anywhere. I'm going to sound like I work for UL, and I don't (but know many of them well), but you just don't find these sorts of issues with UL Listings. They are not easy to fool, and can afford to take a pass on a questionable product. UL's mark is bulletproof, and they want to keep it that way. It's pricey for sure, but they are the Cadillac of Listings.
FlameDXX still pops up now and then. About two years ago, I saw a FlameDXX ad in a Canadian builder magazine. It claimed they were now approved by the Calgary Fire Department. Interesting. But when I went to the Calgary FD website to see if they were indeed on the approved list, what I did find was a posted letter from the Calgary FD stating that FlameDXX was not approved. Oops! Sometimes FlameDXX has an off-brand code report and sometimes they don't have one. Sometimes they have a vague Listing, and sometimes they don't. I ran across a few bundles of it at a junk building supply warehouse in MN a month ago. They were selling it at the price of regular OSB. Looked like it had been painted years ago. I learned about it because it was listed on Craig's list of all places. A product that once flew with the biggest of big dogs in the treating industry, and now stacked in a corner at warehouse one step away from the dump. It happens.
Then there's TimberSIL. Lot's of glowing credentials. Problem is, a Oregon State University study says their preservative claims are no good. An F-DOT study says their strength claims are no good. Their Fire claims? Why bother checking at this point? There's already enough evidence that they have been sending sweet samples to the folks doing their qualifying testing.
The 'treating industry' you think is trying to kill Eco is not w/o its demons, too, such as TimberSIL.
It happens. Global, multi-billion-dollar Arch/Lonza got sucked into a scam product called FlameDXX (funny, it was somebody putting paint on OSB). Arch/Lonza became FlameDXX's sole North American distributor, with designs on taking over the World. It took A/L about two years to figure out they had been had. A couple lawsuits later, they have parted ways. FlameDXX is still running a con game, but few fall for it anymore. What's funnier? Home Depot sold some of that, too, though not much.
So, yes, reputable multi-billion dollar companies fall for scams, but they eventually figure it out.
You seem tense.
There's a key difference to this pilot program and most others. Before the Depot pilot program, if I were to believe all the PR's, Eco was already spraying and shipping wood extensively. During the Depot pilot program, Eco is spraying and shipping wood. After a pilot program, Eco would be spraying and shipping wood. Why would calling a specific span of time of the spraying and shipping of wood a "pilot program" exclude it from being profitable for "several quarters"?
With all the experience from the 100's of homes and structures in Haiti, shipments to Hawaii, all those huge projects in SoCal, South Korea, NJ/NY before the Depot deal, and the list goes on, why is spraying and shipping THEN any different than spraying and shipping to a Home Depot address in the USA NOW? Now it requires losses for several quarters? Where's the hole in the cash drawer?
You spray, you ship. That is the essence of Eco. How hard can that be? It could only be simpler if you eliminated the spraying and/or the shipping.
Heck, as I understand Depot is fronting the wood (?), and based on the mill stamps on the plywood and lumber coming from mills H-D typically buys from that would seem to confirm that, how can you not make money during this pilot program, if indeed there is even a workable methodology to make money selling to Depot?
If you're losing money on a limited launch, you are going to lose unlimited money on an unlimited launch.
This is nowhere near new. See Lonza FrameGuard, for example. Spraying and pressure impregnating with DOT has been around for a very long time.
Now ask yourself why this has never caught on in a big way with so many big companies with cash resources behind it?
Well doggies! I guess you don't work for Eco, or you wouldn't make the slander threats. Depositions and court ordered product testing = bad news for Eco. Verdict? Not guilty!
Read post. It's FD.
The LVL coating is typically field applied and is typically a product called No-Burn. They have an investor that used to be high-up in ICC, so that's been a big help to them. Conflict of interest?
The factory applied intumescent painted i-joist you refer to, as of today, is Weyerhauser's Flakjacket. And their situation in Denver now is a good question I will have to find out. Be aware though, due to limited availability at the moment, Flak jacket might not even be in Denver. It's still all coming out of a single plant location.
The osb you refer to is probably LP/ Barrier Technology FlameBlock. Though their ESR says they are a "coating", they are generally perceived as a "laminate". Go figure.
It's too bad our blog "reporter" can't report on this. All he seems to be able to do is call me names. Give that man a Pulitzer!
You sound like a poet.
If I left the word "coatings" out of the second quote, then that was an oversight on my part. Only COATINGS making FR claims are on the radar. Non-coatings continue to be readily accepted.
If that typo discredits everything else I have said, then so be it. All I have to do, still, is wait out the clock. Two weeks away from the ESR going down the toilet, and taking all those preservative and termite claims with it.
But a guy that falsely uses TPI's logo to suggest third party claims can't be all bad. He's just clever and thrifty, right?
October 2012. Eco press release announcing 3 year Honolulu approval.
October 2013, Honolulu suspends approval. No new press release from Eco.
Honolulu sends no public announcement, but sends a letter to Eco's consultant that submitted for the original approval. I managed to get a copy. But let's be "honest" as I was asked to do. Shouldn't Eco put out a press release to advise consumers? Shouldn't they have put one out on the ESR suspension? The LARR suspension? How about the loss of TPI third party? How about spraying plywood and referencing a lumber listing?
Hey, how about calling out Eco for at least one of these things?
Instead, it's, hey, how about that money losing Depot deal we have going?
Shall I dig deeper? It's just a matter of pushing buttons.
Checked out the Salem location lately...?
March 21, 2013 Market Watch press release from Eco announcing the 24/7 online training programs with course provider AEC Daily. There are NO programs listed on AEC Daily for Eco.
There is no press release or announcement that the previous press release was false. It just is, which is obvious from the very lack of Eco programs. Sometimes you have to research a little bit and have faith in what is not there.
First, you misquoted me, so I can't reply to that. Second, it only applies to coatings making fire retardant claims, and Third, anybody is always welcome go buy a bogus product for a superfluous application. FD doesn't inspect where no fire mitigation is required. Duh?
If you were to plug yourself into the Denver commercial and MF, and WUI, community where there are FR requirements, you would quickly run into this situation. I already have. Therefore, I don't need to prove it to your satisfaction.
But also, don't believe the Eco hype about market penetration. I went by the NJ location myself Friday of last week. No 'phone ringing off the hook'. No ringing at all! The only activity was a guy sweeping for a few minutes, and a few very faded bundles of product parked OUTSIDE across the street in the very back of Glen Rock's yard...in the dirt. The PR from this week is somebody's dream, and not reality. Go check it out!
I don't keep up with football.
To reply to this and the half dozen private messages. Eco has been the specific catalyst for the ban, or whatever you want to call it. There is no posting to search on this...everything is not on the Internet for the novice to stumble into. This is based on the problems now facing projects in Denver that had planned on using intumescent coatings on LVL, which is a somewhat common practice. Now they are being told that all coatings are not being accepted as a fire retardant solution, because Eco has completely muddied the water with a coating that is completely non-code compliant and floating on a number of suspended and dubious credentials (see previous posts). Everything in the building code community is not put out there in terms for the layman and web-searcher to find. Contact the building inspector side of the Denver FD and tell them about your plans to use Eco for fire retardant and enjoy the warm welcome you receive.
Or better yet, build a building where a fire retardant is required, since you are so confident, and then try to pass your framing inspection.
As the truth about the bogus credentials continues to propagate, you will here more of this. A NJ sanity check on the AHJ side is forthcoming. A third party termite test in Hawaii is about to begin. Just remember, you heard it here first! You are on the cutting edge!
Thanks to Eco faking their way onto an inappropriate MF/MS project in Denver recently, Denver city/county FD has banned acceptance of ALL 'fire retardant'-claiming coatings, including intumescent coatings (not just Eco's spray-on red stain). This has created an immediate problem for a couple projects under construction that were going to use intumescent coated LVL. They weren't even using Eco's stuff. Collateral damage from Eco.
As for the project they did get into, it was stopped during framing and was required to switch over to an FRTW product.
This can't be good news for Rocky Mountain Bluwood, Eco's Denver Licensee.
I don't expect anybody to believe me, as usual, but I'm just putting the facts out there for those who wish to actually check it out and verify it on their own.
Didn't misunderstand at all. Did you hear the whooshing sound as my point zipped right by you?
A letter from TPI Legal hasn't kept Eco from using the TPI logo anyway. Eco has no relationship with TPI. Temper the PR content with this indisputable fact that Eco doesn't bother with permission. Don't believe me? Call TPI.