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.
Something that has amazed me since the change in iHub’s TOS is how much passion has been expressed in response to those who are critical of even some aspects of KBLB. Even relatively neutral posts that raise the possibility of a less-than-stellar outcome are met with considerable personal hostility.
The current dynamic frequently plays out where a critical post is generated and it is met by fierce personal attacks.
Critic: “KBLB is facing challenges in moving forward.”
Response: “You are being paid to bash this company.”
These responses strike me as childish, but I think that is unfair to a lot of children. Infantile might be a better term.
Unfortunately the Ignore button has not operated as I expected on my app. I still see messages by those who I have clicked as ignore. I’m getting better at skipping over a lot of these messages.
Just a word of advice: don’t let the kiddies bring you down.
Really enjoyed today’s PR. I can’t believe they are so much further along than anyone predicted. That AF grant they announced: HUGE! And a $200 million joint venture with UA, with UA writing a check for $100 million that Thompson can ‘use as he pleases,’ thats real commitment and a tremendous show of confidence. /fn
Yeah.
BTW, I just cashed my latest check from Spiber. Can you believe they are paying me $50,000 a month to sew doubt on a little investor board in order to obfuscate all of the remarkable and fully substantiated progress reports, timelines met, milestones exceeded on the part of KBLB? They would probably be at $10/share without my skillful ability to undermine each and every success. /s
If he bought 10 oz gold bars, that’s about 22 or 23 for his $450K. Above 10 oz, it’s easier to tamper with the gold and harder to detect. Reselling the gold bars will usually happen at a significant discount. But 23 gold bars won’t take up much space beneath his bed. A couple of shoeboxes, maybe.
Gold is usually purchased as a hedge against inflation. When people start worrying about money, they invest in gold and the price goes up.
Doesn’t always work, but that’s the theory. Once you buy gold and take it into your possession, the gold must be checked when you want to sell it to make sure it is still gold. I don’t think Thompson bought enough to worry most buyers.
Unfortunately there are blends of gold and cheaper metals that can avoid every means of detection short of drilling into an ingot to ensure it is gold all the way through.
I just learned of a new rule named the Austan Goolsbee rule of data: Nobody hides good news. According to many on this board, Mr. Goolsbee needs to make an exception for KBLB: Nobody except Kim Thompson hides good news.
We can see all of the good news that KBLB has hidden since 2014 in WebSlinger’s capsule review of the outcome of forward looking statements.
Of course, all of those previous efforts to bury bad news are irrelevant now that KBLB has succeeded in mass production, immunity silkworms, heart valves, insulin production in place of sericin, and receipt of an AF research grant, but Thompson doesn’t want to talk about all of this good news because … it would help his competitors who, as we all know, aren’t really his competitors because they are just producing goo while KBLB is producing 4% spider protein chimeric silks. /s
Astute observation. Glass 99% empty or 1% full? Two sides of the same coin.
KBLB has produced about $6,000 worth of silk. I believe their contract for year 1 called for $3 million.
6,000/3,000,000,000 = .2%, but I rounded up in KBLB’s favor. Even if Year 1 contract was only for $1 million, my numbers would still apply.
Gimme: “They are doing whatever they are doing to make another attempt at mass scale production. Will it work this time?
Maybe.
Hope so
Who knows?”
Excellent summary of the current situation. I’ve not seen any effective response to this summary by those who promote the stock heavily. Expect personal attacks instead.
Jetow, thanks! Didn’t know that.
Great find, really bad news for KBLB. The Air Force is going with a goo company we have never heard about: Technology Holding, Inc.
What this message says is: “We are going to award the contract to Technology Holding, Inc, but will give everyone else a chance to toss their hat into the trash bin.”
AF funding is a SLAM DUNK for Technology Holding, Inc. Oops!
The long absence of any substantive news leads to an erosion of confidence. I expect this to continue at least through the end of this quarter. With luck, we will get something hopeful by mid-November. What effect that will have is difficult to say.
KBLB: keeping mum and playing dumb.
Their most ‘convincing’ argument seems to be that KBLB’s share price is low because of all of us ‘bashers.’
Bashing the ‘bashers’: I’m not convinced. As you point out, very few investors seem to be either.
But I’m not taking as much time on KBLB now that I just skip over most of the messages.
I believe the clock is running out on KBLB. If they can’t succeed in producing silk with their remaining funding and have to resort to an additional round of dilution, investor confidence will be lost and the share price will tank and not recover.
LoL. Nice one.
What a great find. I wish I had any confidence that KBLB had someone of that caliber on their staff. Incorporating sequences that bind to carbon nano fibers and silver, expressing the proteins outside of the yeast so that the fibers can be extracted from the growth media and not the sludge that results when you have to destroy the yeast to get to the silk, this guy is quite talented.
I don’t recall him giving an exact protein length, but he indicated that his proteins were about 1/3 of the actual silk proteins from spiders and calcium could be used to bind together into longer chains.
Wow.
I appreciate your efforts to keep the board honest.
Me, I’ve resigned myself to the fact that this board contains a significant number of posters unworthy of attention. I haven’t paid for the upgrade that allows me to block their posts, but just scroll on past.
Not worth my time. Nor worth anyone’s time, from what I can tell.
I’m not responding to many posters these days who have given up any pretense of arguing about the evidence and now spew vitriolic posts about paid professional bashers.
From the volume, it is clear we have really gotten under people’s skin by taking an objective look at things.
Right now I take this charge as a badge of honor. Like you, I’ve earned countless badges every day. The number of attack posts far outnumbers the number of posts that you, I, WebSlinger, and others of our ilk provide on any given day.
Meanwhile, another red day for KBLB. Those attack posts must be convincing a lot of new investors to jump in. /s
WebSlinger, you saved me a ton of work to ferret out these points. Just what I wanted to know. Thanks for the timely summary.
Personally I will take your posts over people who seem to blame you for all their discomforts — any day.
That imaginary fairy dust? Just a little extra something you have sprinkled into all of our lives.
Possibly nefarious reasons, but I wonder if some people have become so caught up in the fantasy of their long-delayed but wildly profitable success that they can’t stand any reality intruding on their dreams. Maybe they still believe in Santa Claus too, and reject all evidence to the contrary?
Distilling everything down to a shot of vodka. Gonna burn when it goes down. Nice.
There you go again, providing actual evidence in an effort to rebut a ridiculous opinion. Kind of like bringing a rocket-propelled grenade to a squirt-gun fight.
Still, I expect you will continue to be soaked. Actual evidence bounces off the reality distortion fields of several on this board. Absent any proof of their position, they will reply with those squirt-guns.
Hope you brought your rain suit!
Hear, Hear! Nice job.
Nature abhors a vacuum, it is said. Thompson is dribbling out such tiny morsels spread so far apart that we might as well be in an information blackout.
Posters rush in to fill the void. What will happen months from now if KBLB’s silence continues?
Maybe fatigue will set in? But I’m sure the boosters will soldier on chanting “Soon! Soon! Soon!”
WebSlinger: “If you believe that they have 100-200 kilos with a inventory of $6000, then that would put 1 kilo at $30-60. That doesn't sound correct.”
What is your estimate on the price per kilo?
Sorry. In their May 30 PR, Thompson indicated that Prodigy had effective climate control but GSS does not have an air-conditioned environment:
“Prodigy Textiles operates from a historical silk breeding facility constructed with double-insulating brick and concrete walls to regulate temperatures inside. When we renovated the facility, we added air processing and conditioning equipment to all of our rearing facilities to ensure tight control of climate conditions in our egg breeding center, allowing year-round operation. This heat wave also hit the country while our third-party contractor has paused their operations as they await the delivery of more robust silkworms from our teams here at Kraig and Prodigy.”
No mention of air conditioning at GSS. Not an oversight.
But a lack of robustness does not mean ‘illness.’
What does it mean for a silkworm to be strong? They can lift twice as many mulberry leaves as the 98 gram weakling? The notion of ‘strength’ can only be understood in a metaphorical sense. KBLB would be far better off if they didn’t apply misleading metaphors.
Robustness is almost invariably applied (when talking about people) to individuals who are exceptionally strong and healthy. Would you say there are just two categories of people, those who are robust and those who are weak and sick?
In their recent PR, KBLB is admitting that a problem with their silkworm colony is they have many unhealthy silkworms. Not just normal everyday health-wise silkworms. If silkworms were producing just fine in the lab but having trouble adapting to conditions at GSS where climate control is not as good, that would be one problem. But KBLB admitted they were having trouble producing in their laboratory because their silkworms are sickly.
I don’t believe that KBLB brought in a bunch of sickly silkworms for their genetic insertions. This raises the uncomfortable specter that modifying their genome to produce spider silk proteins has a side effect that leaves their silkworms sickly.
With luck, they can find silkworms that are healthy, contain the spider silk genes, breed true, and don’t produce sickly offspring. But, as TRUISM has suggested, the technology may be problematic. Within a generation or two (or three or four), the spider silk genes might lead to a degradation in the silkworm’s remaining genes and they become sickly.
Let me state clearly that the situation I am describing is only a possibility, not a certainty, and I don’t have any more evidence to support or refute this than anyone else does, nor can I pretend to assign any probabilities to the alternatives.
My goal was not to trumpet success or failure, but to focus on areas of agreement and disagreement, and to foster a situation where we can agree to disagree and hopefully reduce the rhetoric.
Right now I feel akin to people from Missouri: the show me state. That’s the kind of evidence I want to see before I jump out of the bathtub naked and shout ‘Eureka!’
(If you hear that happen, please cover your eyes. Not a pretty sight!)
TRUISM, I am basing my belief that KBLB was able to produce an unknown quantity of silk at GSS on several pieces of evidence.
1) In their Dec. 14 Letter, Thompson indicated they had received a shipment of silk from GSS and this silk would be reserved for Spydasilk.
2) The 2022 annual report showed an inventory of silk on hand worth about $6,000.
Given how long delayed any meaningful delivery of silk has been to Kings, it is easy to see why they could very well be unhappy with KBLB and looking for a way out of their contract. I am not saying this is happening for certain, only that the action of stripping KBLB away from their website and the absence of even an initial payment of $250,000 to KBLB is consistent with that situation.
If I recall correctly, KBLB signed the contract with Kings in 2021. Only late in 2023 were they able to generate a modest quantity of silk at GSS. I’m guessing their inventory is between 100 and 200 kilos, but this quantity cannot be pinned down with any certainty.
Thus, I believe that KBLB has been able to produce a modest amount of silk that meets their specifications. Why this success could not be leveraged into increasing levels of production is unclear to me if not to KBLB.
A few minor things. First, my language on the lab issue was less than clear. What I meant to say is:
The problem appeared in both the laboratory and in production.
Seems like you figured out what I meant to say.
Next, KBLB employs terms like ‘robustness’ that to me do not have a clear meaning. When they said ‘robustness’ I did not interpret that as the same thing as ‘strength and health.’ To me, robustness suggests the ability to thrive under difficult conditions. A robust silkworm is one that could be raised to the point of cocooning either in a climate-controlled environment optimal for silkworm growth or in a more natural environment such as the variable temperatures and humidity levels found in a facility like GSS. A problem with ‘health’ is one that is more broad than a problem with ‘robustness.’ It also affects laboratory silkworms, not just the ones at GSS.
Why this matters: Prior to the July 19 PR, the problem of ‘robustness and acclimation’ that had been reported in Vietnam only appeared to be a bottleneck in commercial production, not laboratory production. But the July 19 PR made it clear this was a problem in both areas.
Agreed?
In identifying ‘strength and health’ as a problem in laboratory production, that suggests the problem is not an issue of how robust the silkworms are. Even under the ideal environment that can be provided at KBLB’s HQ, some of the silkworms are exhibiting problems.
Next, you brought in a third party to the discussion: What KBLB believes. No harm in that. I agree with you that KBLB most likely believes that they have solved the issue of the ‘strength and health’ issue. It seems to me like you are saying “KBLB believes they have solved the ‘strength and health’ issue so I accept their belief.”
Now I will point out that KBLB did not claim the issue had been solved, only ‘addressed.’ Even beyond that, KBLB has been wrong before when they believed they had a problem solved. For example, KBLB thought that they could use eye color to determine whether a silkworm had inherited the spider silk genes they implanted. They were wrong, as the discussion of ‘genetic drift’ made clear.
I’m not trying to change your mind on this issue. Instead I am asking if you understand why my skepticism is also reasonable given what we have been told.
We both agree that KBLB was able to produce a quantity of silk that met their quality standards at GSS. I hope you agree that neither one of us has more than a vague idea of how much silk was produced. The stated problems limiting production were “acclimation and conditioning of our silkworm line to the local production environment.” I will assume agreement on that fact.
I hope we find common ground at least that far into the picture. Now I want to add another piece from the latest PR:
“The new staff also identified and implemented alternative methods for screening the strength and health of our diverse silkworm colony. That work has led to addressing a previously unknown bottleneck in both laboratory and commercial production.”
This more recent PR references an ‘unknown bottleneck in both laboratory and commercial production.’ There is no reference to ‘acclimation and conditioning’ in this PR and this problem arises in both laboratory settings and commercial settings. If the problem were simply ‘acclimation and conditioning,’ I do not believe it would not have occurred in the laboratory, nor would they have mentioned ‘strength and health’ as concerns.
I’m not trying to state anything controversial here but am seeking common ground.
Next, I want to postulate that the problem in Vietnam might not have been simply the ‘acclimation and conditioning’ issue as first described. The latest PR has two pertinent ideas here: ‘previously unknown’ and ‘strength and health.’ By mentioning ‘strength and health’ that goes beyond the initial description of ‘acclimation and conditioning’ in my view. Agree?
Is it a bridge too far to believe that the ‘strength and health’ of silkworms at GSS might have been one of the factors that limited production there, even though KBLB believed the issue was one of ‘acclimation and conditioning?’ This may be one of the reasons why the previously unknown problem was a bottleneck in ‘both laboratory and commercial production.’
Again, I am hoping we can agree on this.
The implication to me is this: IF KBLB can find a way to improve the strength and health of their silkworm lines, they may at last be able to produce silk at commercial scales. That is not to say KBLB cannot do it. I’m just expressing a contingency: If the problem can be solved, the answer can be produced.
Once again, I hope we share this much common ground.
Where I suspect we diverge is: 1) whether we think KBLB has already solved the problems of strength and health or not; 2) whether we think KBLB can solve the strength and health problems or not; and 3) whether this is the last problem KBLB needs to reach the point where commercial production is routine and the silk will be produced in metric ton quantities like clockwork. By emphasizing certain words I am not implying the contrary. If they haven’t solved the problems already, they have a chance to do so in the future. That is something I believe.
I won’t try to speak for you but my answers are:
1) don’t know, hope so.
2) don’t know, hope so.
3) don’t know, hope so.
If you are certain the answers are ‘yes’ and I insist on waiting for more evidence from KBLB until I move from ‘don’t know’ to ‘yes,’ can you at least understand why I might be hesitant to pull the ‘SUCCESS’ lever at this time?
Elegant summary of the relevant issues. Thanks!
Gimme: “This has become nothing that resembles a discussion board.”
The tag line for the movie Alien was “In space, no one can hear you scream.” Right now, KBLB investors are mostly in an information vacuum.
There is a lot of screaming going on. Not quite sure why. Perhaps people who expected KBLB to make them millions of dollars are getting nervous about delay after delay? Just speculation, but I agree that little on the board constitutes actual discussion.
I’m trying to put facts out there for folks to read and to avoid back-and-forths with people whose minds are not going to be changed by evidence-based arguments.
Late in the year, I am hoping for an update about the hybrid program. Until that time, expect more screaming.
Unfortunately the information you put out is irrelevant. Since you feel context is so important, I will provide the full section from KBLB’s bylaws:
Section 1. Place of shareholder meetings. Meetings of the shareholders shall be held at any place, either within or without this state, as may be selected from time to time by the Board of Directors. In the absence of any such designation to the contrary, shareholder's meetings shall be held at a place designated by the board of directors which is within 20 miles from Michigan State University's Beaumont Tower.
Section 2. Electronic meetings. The board of directors may, in its sole discretion, determine that a meeting of shareholders shall not be held at any place, but may instead be held by means of remote communication. If a 'meeting is to take place by means of remote communication, the board shall take into consideration shareholders' ability to participate by remote communication and provide an alternative means of participation for those shareholders unable to participate by remote communication.
Section 3. Notice of shareholder meetings. The corporation shall notify shareholders of the date, time, place and means of communication of each annual and special shareholders' meeting no fewer than ten (10) nor more than sixty (60) days before the meeting date. The corporation is required to give notice only to shareholders entitled to vote at the meeting.
Section 4. Annual meeting of the shareholders. The annual meeting of the shareholders shall be held on the 2nd Wednesday of March at 11M A.M. local time. If this day be a legal holiday, then the meeting shall be held on the next succeeding business day, at the same time. At the annual meeting, the shareholders shall elect a board of directors, report the affairs of the corporation, and transact such other business as may properly be brought before the meeting, if the above date is inconvenient, as may be determined by the board of directors, the annual meeting of shareholders shall be held within each calendar year on a date and at a time designated by the board of directors upon proper notice to all shareholders.
3
Section 5. Special Meetings of shareholders. Special meetings of the shareholders may be called at any time by the Chairman of the Board of Directors, or the Board of Directors. Special meetings of the shareholders may also be called if the holders of at least twenty five percent (25%) of ali the votes entitled to be cast on any issue proposed to be considered at the proposed special meeting sign, either manually or in facsimile, date, and deriver to the corporation one (1) or more written demands for the meeting describing the purpose or purposes for which it is to be herd. A written demand for a special meeting may be revoked by a writing to that effect received by the corporation prior to the receipt by the corporation of demands sufficient in number to require the holding of a special meeting.
The record date for determining shareholders entitled to demand a special meeting is the date the first shareholder signs the demand.
Special shareholders' meetings may be held in or out of this state at the place determined by the board of directors and stated in the notice of the meeting. The board of directors may, in its sole discretion, determine that the meeting shall not be held at any place, but may instead be held by means of remote communication as described above in the bylaws relating to annual meetings.
Section 6. Notice of Special Meeting. At any time, upon written request of any person or persons who have properly called a special meeting, it shall be the duty of the Secretary to fix the date of the meeting, to be held not more than sixty days after receipt of the request, and to give due notice thereof. If the Secretary shall neglect or refuse to fix the date of the meeting and give notice thereof, the person or persons calling the meeting may do so.
Business transacted at all special meetings shall be confined to the objects stated in the call and matters germane thereto, unless all shareholders entitled to vote are present and consent.
Written notice of a special meeting of shareholders stating the time and place and object thereof, shall be given to each shareholder entitled to vote thereat. Unless otherwise provided by law, written notice of any meeting shall be given not less than ten nor more than sixty days before the date of the meeting to each shareholder entitled to vote at such meeting.
Section 7. Quorum: A majority of the outstanding shares of the corporation entitled to vote, represented in person or by proxy, shall constitute a quorum at any meeting of shareholders, If less than a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote is represented at a meeting, a majority of the shares so represented may adjourn the meeting from time to time without further notice. At such adjourned meeting at which a quorum shall be present or represented, any business may be transacted which might have been transacted at the meeting as originally noticed. The shareholders present at a duly called or held meeting at which a quorum is present may continue to do business until adjournment, notwithstanding the withdrawal of enough shareholders to leave fess than a quorum, if any action taken (other than adjournment) is approved by at least a majority of the shares requiredto constitute a quorum.
—————————-
A quorum is 50% of the outstanding shares entitled to vote + 1. Thompson for many years had a majority share but, after dilution and after his stock sales, he needs outside help to reach that number.
The SEC requires 14A Proxy Statements to be filed prior to annual shareholder meetings. EDGAR (the official SEC investor toolkit) reports precisely 0 14A forms filed by KBLB. Not a single one.
KBLB is not having secret shareholder meetings where no actual shareholders are invited. They are not holding annual shareholder meetings.
Funny, but Ben was not able to provide me with any details about an annual shareholder meeting this year held by KBLB. According to their bylaws, they are supposed to be held the second Wednesday in March at 11 am. But the bylaws don’t provide a venue.
In order to hold a meeting, you have to tell people who are supposed to be invited where the meeting is held. If it is online, you have to provide a URL they can use to participate. If it is in person, give a location.
Proxy statements (Schedule 14A) are REQUIRED to be submitted to the SEC giving the Notice of Annual Shareholder Meeting and the agenda of the meeting, including the votes for corporate officials, who are elected on an annual term.
Edgar (SEC website) does not have a single 14A Proxy statement that was submitted by KBLB in its history. The database may be limited. Looking at Berkshire Hathaway, Edgar shows annual 14A forms submitted every year since 2013.
SEC and company bylaws require all shareholders to be notified in advance of ASMs and to be given proxy statements that detail the agenda and voting matters for the meeting, along with a description of how votes may be made by shareholders unable to attend the meeting. These matters MUST be detailed in Form 14A and submitted to the SEC.
Please don’t pretend that KBLB has been holding shareholders meetings on an annual basis. They have not.
I took your advice. In January I started asking Ben about the location of the ASM (which is NOT specified in the bylaws). Here was my query:
“Hey Ben,
I haven't heard back from you about the venue for the Annual Shareholders Meeting in March. Any idea about the schedule and location?”
Here is his reply:
“There are no plans and it may not happen.”
He was never able to notify me about the location of the ASM because IT DIDN’T HAPPEN.
Oops!
This year in late February I contacted Ben to ask him about the location and to confirm the date (2nd Wednesday in March, March 8 this year) and starting time (11 am) of the ASM. I was told that KBLB was not holding an ASM this year.
Some have argued that the ASM is being held per the bylaws.
Although the bylaws specify the date and time, they do not provide the location. Without that information, shareholders are not able to attend. Given that Ben could not provide a location and denied that there was a shareholder meeting taking place this year, I have to conclude there was none.
Is this matter better taken up with the SEC or the OTC? Any thoughts?
WebSlinger: “Whatever happened to the golden poop cross that you and other pumpers were touting?”
I thought you knew. It’s coming … ‘soon.’
Pretty much how I see things, yeah.
Nice article. Raises a concern about cost of Spiber’s fibers but we cannot determine exactly what Spiber’s costs are and how much they are charging for their fibers.
If they are selling at a loss, that will be unsustainable in the long run. If their price is high, that limits the ultimate range of applications they can compete for.
I’m not surprised that Spiber is keeping silent on this issue. If they ever do go public, we would know more about these issues than they are willing to report on at this time.
In any case, I thought the article was really nice and appreciate your posting it for the group to see.