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.
Let's make that .79 for MKRS.
MKRS -- Those 52 week highs just keep on coming. We just painted .79, and the 80s are in our future.
Glad you decided to buy, bb. I've been on this one for a long time . . . I believe it was one of my picks in the first vmc contest some years ago. I suspect my standing in that contest continues to rise. I'm still sitting tight.
MKRS -- Closed at .71, a temporary 52 week high.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=mkrs&sid=0&o_symb=mkrs&x...
MKRS -- Mikros Systems Corporation Announces Additional Funding on SBIR Phase II Contract
Friday May 25, 9:00 am ET
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070525/nef014.html?.v=7
They're beginning to pile on the pr's!
MKRS hits 52 week high, .55. Only 4 mm's under .61.
MKRS -- for a company that traditionally does no pr, the release is great, bbotc. The potential is tremendous considering the number of military and comercial vessels that might use their technology. I think a half a buck is going to look cheap in the not too distant future. Istarted buying at .12 about three years ago and have added at as high as .45 just last week. If my portfolio were not already so heavily weighted in MKRS, I'd consider buying more. It may dip lower before it goes higher, but in the long run, this stock is cheap.
MKRS -- Rare PR:
Mikros Systems Corporation Reports Substantial Increases in Revenue and Profit
Monday May 21, 9:00 am ET
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070521/nem057.html?.v=8
We hardcore MKRSers are expecting much more in sales. Price isn't up yet but volume is coming in.
MKRS receives 2.4 mil order from the navy.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070503/neth107.html?.v=3
The long-awaited PR from MKRS:
Mikros Systems Corporation Reports Fiscal Year 2006 Results
Tuesday April 3, 11:35 am ET
PRINCETON, N.J., April 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Mikros Systems Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: MKRS.OB - News; Mikros or the Company) is pleased to announce the financial results from its most recent fiscal year ended December 31, 2006. Revenues for the year are up by nearly 50% over 2005 increasing from approximately $1,550,000 in 2005 to approximately $2,275,000 in 2006. Net income remained about the same for 2006 at $130,000 compared to $135,000 for 2005. This was primarily attributable to the Company reversing a larger portion of its valuation allowance against its deferred tax assets associated with available net operating loss carryforwards during 2005 and 2006. Income from operations in 2006 increased by 95% over 2005, from $82,000 in 2005 to $160,000 in 2006. Complete 2006 financial statements of the Company can be found in its Form 10-KSB Annual Report filed with the SEC. This Annual Report can be accessed through the Mikros website at www.Mikros.us.
Under continuing business, Mikros reported two major awards from the U.S. Navy during 2006. The first was a $2.95M amendment to its Phase III SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) contract with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division (NSWC DD) for the development of ADEPT®, an automated maintenance and alignment tool for the Navy's AN/SPY-1 Aegis radar system. In addition to developing ADEPT application software for all the SPY- 1 variants within U.S. Navy inventory, this amendment, awarded March 1, 2006, calls for the development of a second production version of ADEPT approximately one-half the size and weight of the original version with the same functionality as the original. This amendment opens up the total market for ADEPT to all 84 ships of the Aegis fleet.
The second major award in 2006 was an SBIR Phase II contract from Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), San Diego, awarded on May 1, 2006 as a follow-on to the SBIR Phase I work performed under the SBIR topic entitled Radar Wireless Spectral Efficiency (RWSE). Focusing on the real world implications of incorporating wireless networking aboard U.S. Navy warships, this $750,000 award ($600,000 base with a $150,000 option) is for the development of a prototype interference-aware wireless network planning tool in support of implementing wireless networking within the already crowded RF shipboard environment.
In addition to the above contract awards, other major milestones achieved by Mikros during 2006 included the registration of the product name ADEPT with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office making it a registered trademark of the Company; ADEPT testing aboard the USS SAN JACINTO, Aegis cruiser CG-56; wireless networking surveys aboard the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON, CVN-73, and the USS BATAAN, LHD-5; and the gathering of empirical data on the radio frequency (RF) shipboard environment on board a warship, the USS KEARSAGE, LHD-3, while underway.
Mikros expects 2007 to be another profitable year with the continuation of its two major SBIR programs, ADEPT and RWSE. Under ADEPT, Mikros is seeking additional funding to continue the development of an Integrated Logistics Support Plan to enable the operational fielding of ADEPT aboard U.S. Navy ships and to produce ten (10) version 2 ADEPT units for introduction to the fleet. The Company also anticipates additional funding from the U.S. Navy to expand its RWSE research to areas beyond the shipboard environment. In addition to press releases, Mikros intends to keep its shareholders abreast of any developments in these and other areas through the periodic posting of "What's New" snippets on its website at www.Mikros.us.
Important Information about Forward-Looking Statements: All statements in this news release other than statements of historical facts are forward- looking statements which contain our current expectations about our future results. Forward-looking statements involve numerous risks and uncertainties. We have attempted to identify any forward-looking statements by using words such as "anticipates," "believes," "could," "expects," "intends," "may," "should" and other similar expressions. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in all of our forward-looking statements are reasonable, we can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Such statements are not guarantees of future performance or events and are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause the Company's actual results, events or financial positions to differ materially from those included within the forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to, changes in business conditions, changes in our sales strategy and product development plans, changes in the marketplace, continued services of our executive management team, our limited marketing experience, competition between us and other companies seeking SBIR grants, competitive pricing pressures, market acceptance of our products under development, delays in the development of products, statements of assumption underlying any of the foregoing, and other factors disclosed in our annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 and other filings with the SEC. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to disclose any revision to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070403/cltu176.html?.v=10
PHPG -- from the 10K posted this morning:
"Profit from operations in 2006 was $917,000. This compares with a profit in 2005 of $358,000, and an operating loss of $(410,000) in 2004. Management's efforts to restore and increase profitability from operations through 2006 have been focused on expanding the scope of the Company's product lines, increasing the Company's top line, and on improving productivity in its operations. Throughout 2006, the Company continued to focus on cost saving opportunities with respect to its overhead structure and other manufacturing expenses. The improved results have been a direct result of the success to date of these efforts."
MKRS -- to amend my earlier post, it may the last chance to buy sub .50. Currently .41 - .48 on over 170,000 shares, 8 1/2 times normal volume. 31.77 mil os.
This volume is very convincing. This isn't raging bull holders adding. .40 x .42 on over 150,000 shares.
MKRS -- Pressure building in anticipation of earnings and pr due by the end of the week. Last chance to buy sub .40, imo.
Are you familiar with SAU.v, Bobwins?
AMLJ -- AML Communications Receives $1.9 Million Order
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070212/20070212005278.html?.v=1
Does anyone have any insight, or can they garner any, into this mining company: http://www.simberimining.com/
It comes highly recommended from an excellent source -- a fund manager who's friends with a friend of my cousin.
MKRS -- And good news it is, Swan. This is going to see much higher prices, soon, and throughout the next few years, imvho.
MKRS: I liked this from today's release.
Mikros has submitted proposals to the U.S. Navy for additional development and for the procurement of more ADEPT(TM) systems. The funding for the proposal will come from the Congressional Add to the President's FY06 budget.
Admiral Wayne E. Meyer (Ret.), Chairman of the Board of Mikros, was honored on November 27, 2006 when the U.S. Navy's Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mike Mullen, announced the naming of the Aegis Destroyer DDG-108 the USS Wayne E. Meyer. Admiral Meyer is often referred to as the "Father of Aegis" as a result of his leadership in the Aegis shipbuilding program which has been ongoing for three decades. More details on this ceremony held at the Lockheed Martin facility in Moorestown, New Jersey may be obtained from the Mikros website at http://www.mikros.us.
First and last post here: SLJB is the best tax-loss vehicle I ever rode in. Adios.
MKRS scratching its way up; still cheap imo.
MKRS -- Between their 40% of the float and my 40% of the float . . . jest kidding. I don't have that much but I do have the proverbial boatload, albeit a boat of relative size. The MKRS thread on Raging Bull has become one of the very few threads on RB that I still look at, and as a long time follower of the SI kitchen, I am encouraged by Gary's ongoing enthusiasm for the stock. I do hope other (but not all) IH VMers latch onto MKRS' rising star. Thanks for the posts . . .
ksuave
I was on airplanes and in aiports all day. What a great treat to find. I almost wrote "what a surprise." but I'm not. Loved the volume. We have a lot more to come.
Link to the Windsor Star article, please! eom
MKRS -- It's been a long time coming, but it finally looks like we're finally poised to leave this level behind
EZEN -- the cause of less revenue than anticipated should have been expected. I believe we will, unfortunately, see more and more of this. From yesterday's pr:
"The shortcoming in revenue of the third quarter of 2006 has been a direct result of delays and lengthened sales cycles, due to the shortage of available funding and discretionary spending traditionally available and exercised as the end of the government fiscal year approaches. With expenses overrunning defense appropriations in the support of the wars against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending on information technology (IT) has been significantly curtailed resulting in delays and postponement of purchases of InfoWorkSpace (IWS) licenses, services programs, and development contracts."
If only they could get Brown and Root to handle their sales!
The stolen 2004 election
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
From Obama
June 1, 2006
Dear Democrat:
I don't know about you, but I think we've all had enough. Enough of the
broken promises. Enough of the failed leadership. Enough of the can't-do,
won't-do, won't-even-try style of governance.
I've had enough of so-called leaders who don't think government should even
try to solve the big, national problems. In their clouded philosophy,
government is the problem. I've had enough of the attitude that we'd be
better off if we just divvy up the federal budget into individual tax breaks
and let everyone fend for themselves. I think we've all had enough of being
told to buy your own health care, your own retirement security, your own
child care, your own schools, your own private security force, your own
roads, and your own levees.
This idea of America can never actually work because it so fundamentally
ignores our legacy as a people. Our greatness as a nation has always
depended on our sense of national community and mutual responsibility.
Everybody has a stake in America. We're all in this together and everybody
gets a fair shot at opportunity.
As Democrats, we still believe in the idea of America. We're ready to
compete in an increasingly interconnected world. We're ready to conduct a
smart foreign policy that matches the might of our military with the power
of our diplomacy.
In short, we're ready to lead. Electing a Democratic Senate is the first
step to rejecting the failed leadership and failed philosophies. That's the
job the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee will be doing over the next
few months, but believe me, they need your help to change our country.
It's the timidity - the smallness - of our politics that's holding America
back and making our people uncertain. The idea that some problems are just
too big to handle, and if you just ignore them, they'll go away.
You and I have seen what this can't-do attitude has brought us: failure.
We, as Democrats, have a responsibility to change our politics. Now is the
time for us to stand up and make our mark on history. It's time for America
to learn how to dream again and to do great things in the face of serious
challenges.
That's the idea of America our Democratic Senate candidates are fighting
for. In state after state, our candidates are leading in the public opinion
polls. But they still face an uphill battle because our opponents can
simply outspend our candidates and drown out Democratic ideas.
Now is the time to take action. With your help, the DSCC can make sure
Democratic Senate candidates have the resources they need to compete and
win. We can only begin the hard work ahead of us once we have changed the
balance of power in Washington.
Electing a Democratic Senate is the first step in changing our politics and
our country. It's a step that we can accomplish in just a few short months.
And it's the sole mission of the DSCC. We need your help to succeed.
Please join me today and help the DSCC realize the idea of America Democrats
hold dear.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
P.S. One great way to get involved right now in the DSCC's campaign to take
back the Senate is to visit the organization's website. You can learn more
about our candidates and get up-to-date news from races around the country.
DSCC.org is the only place to see the latest television ads from our
candidates and exclusive online videos.
PHPG -- Very low float, potentially explosive, has been moving up slowly and surely all year (albeit on low volume). Their manufacturing of optical components and sophisticated laser subsystems and instruments are used primarily for controlling and measuring laser radiation -- something used to defend air-craft from shoulder-to-air missile devices, something all commercial aircraft may someday be required to carry. Originally brought to my attention in the Microcap Kitchen, by GPG.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=phpg&sid=0&o_symb=phpg&x...
Yes, I agree that footbal is one of the few profitable programs on college campuses (aside from fleecing the students via tuition), but it has nothing to do with higher education. Besides, I was just goofing in that paragraph, something this thread is in seiously short supply of.
Death, I was, until a few minutes ago, unaware of any rule against forwarding pm's. I sent it around to the few regular contributors here because I thought they might be interested to know why I was probably going to be banned soon. You may notice that I made no comment about the note I passed along, and I too never sought out a personal feud (other than political in nature, such as my and otcbb's bantering back and forth)and was actually dismayed at finding myself in one with the keyholder here, but also felt it necessary to defend myself from his charges. I apologize for sending that to you, and will not do so again in the future.
Dr. Ksuave
It is so true, Mr. Lentinman -- I am awaiting a single shred of photographic evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01.
I would also like to ask those who think they win a disagreement with Rogue by calling him a nut to offer a rational explanation why World Trade Center 7 collapsed. If they can't, then I guess all Rogue's theories are true (except for the Trotskyites), at least according to the "logic" that some offer here.
Dr. Ksuave
“Angry conservatives are driving the approval ratings of President Bush and the GOP-led Congress to dismal new lows,”
Except for immediately after 9/11 when Liberals patriotically gave support to the man holding the office of the presidency despite his obvious shortcomings, Bush's approval rating has for the most part been about 50-55%, and his re-election margin was an undecidedly un-mandate like 51-49%. While angry conservatives may be helping to lower W’s approval ratings, let’s not forget that a great many people saw this ignorant, bungling incompetent for what he and his cronies were from the start, and they still make up the bulk of people who are disapproving. “Conservatives” who now disapprove of Bush might stop being so self-congratulatory and they might show a little repentance and remorse, for they are the ones who empowered this horrible administration in the first place, and they continued to attack it’s critics long after its failures were glaringly apparent. It's literally taken disaster for them to see the light.
otcbargain -- I'm afraid I don't follow football at all and have absolutely no idea what utep players you're talking about. I'm one of those cabernet drinking, pot smoking, tree hugging liberals who think football programs should be discontinued on campuses with the money going instead to beef up the women's studies departments. As a matter of fact, I've been thinking of going back to school and becoming a master or maybe even a ph.d of women's studies.
ksuave
LFWK to leave the pinks, join the big boys on the otc.
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/060505/0127411.html
Comrade Paul Krugman on why it's Bush's conservative policies, not just Bush, that have failed:
Bogus Bush Bashing
By PAUL KRUGMAN (NYT)
Published: March 20, 2006
''The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is 'incompetent,' and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: 'idiot' and 'liar.' '' So says the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, whose most recent poll found that only 33 percent of the public approves of the job President Bush is doing.
Mr. Bush, of course, bears primary responsibility for the state of his presidency. But there's more going on here than his personal inadequacy; we're looking at the failure of a movement as well as a man. As evidence, consider the fact that most of the conservatives now rushing to distance themselves from Mr. Bush still can't bring themselves to criticize his actual policies. Instead, they accuse him of policy sins -- in particular, of being a big spender on domestic programs -- that he has not, in fact, committed.
Before I get to the bogus issue of domestic spending, let's look at the policies the new wave of conservative Bush bashers refuses to criticize.
Mr. Bush's new conservative critics don't say much about the issue that most disturbs the public, the quagmire in Iraq. That's not surprising. Commentators who acted as cheerleaders in the run-up to war, and in many cases questioned the patriotism of those of us who were skeptical, can't criticize the decision to start this war without facing up to their own complicity in that decision.
Nor, after years of insisting that things were going well in Iraq and denouncing anyone who said otherwise, is it easy for them to criticize Mr. Bush's almost surreal bungling of the war. (William Kristol of The Weekly Standard is the exception; he says that we never made a ''serious effort'' in Iraq, which will come as news to the soldiers.)
Meanwhile, the continuing allegiance of conservatives to tax cuts as the universal policy elixir prevents them from saying anything about the real sources of the federal budget deficit, in particular Mr. Bush's unprecedented decision to cut taxes in the middle of a war. (My colleague Bob Herbert points out that the Iraq hawks chose to fight a war with other people's children. They chose to fight it with other people's money, too.)
They can't even criticize Mr. Bush for the systematic dishonesty of his budgets. For one thing, that dishonesty has been apparent for five years. More than that, some prominent conservative commentators actually celebrated the administration's dishonesty. In 2001 Time.com blogger Andrew Sullivan, writing in The New Republic, conceded that Mr. Bush wasn't truthful about his economic policies. But Mr. Sullivan approved of the deception: ''Bush has to obfuscate his real goals of reducing spending with the smokescreen of 'compassionate conservatism.' '' As Berkeley's Brad DeLong puts it on his blog, conservatives knew that Mr. Bush was lying about the budget, but they thought they were in on the con.
So what's left? Well, it's safe for conservatives to criticize Mr. Bush for presiding over runaway growth in domestic spending, because that implies that he betrayed his conservative supporters. There's only one problem with this criticism: it's not true.
It's true that federal spending as a percentage of G.D.P. rose between 2001 and 2005. But the great bulk of this increase was accounted for by increased spending on defense and homeland security, including the costs of the Iraq war, and by rising health care costs.
Conservatives aren't criticizing Mr. Bush for his defense spending. Since the Medicare drug program didn't start until 2006, the Bush administration can't be blamed for the rise in health care costs before then. Whatever other fiscal excesses took place weren't large enough to play more than a marginal role in spending growth.
So where does the notion of Bush the big spender come from? In a direct sense it comes largely from Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation, who issued a report last fall alleging that government spending was out of control. Mr. Riedl is very good at his job; his report shifts artfully back and forth among various measures of spending (nominal, real, total, domestic, discretionary, domestic discretionary), managing to convey the false impression that soaring spending on domestic social programs is a major cause of the federal budget deficit without literally lying.
But the reason conservatives fall for the Heritage spin is that it suits their purposes. They need to repudiate George W. Bush, but they can't admit that when Mr. Bush made his key mistakes -- starting an unnecessary war, and using dishonest numbers to justify tax cuts -- they were cheering him on.
Dick Cheney is not a Trotskyite. The threat is not from the left. That's ludicruous, Rogue. There are no Trotskyites in skull and crossbones, Rogue; Trotskyites have no power. In the attempt to tie everything together, those who can see the problem rely on their old prejudices to put answers together, and they lose their credibility, and they diminish the effectiveness of their observations. Sheesh. Look to the boardrooms of America, the respectable leaders of society for who controls things, not towards powerless utopians. I'm disappointed in you, Rogue.
And why have the know-it-alls on this thread failed to answer my challenge and post some evidence of wreckage re flight 93 and the flight that supposedly flew into the Pentagon. By the twisted logic of one of the regulars here, their failure to post it is absolute proof that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
Well, that settles that!
Rogue – Despite my skepticism about the official version of what really happened on 9/11 – I’ve always wondered about the collapse of WTC 7 and I leaned towards the belief that flight 93 was shot down rather than bravely brought down by the passengers (although I never felt the govt was necessarily unjustified in lying about it) – I never bothered to look into the theory that the pentagon wasn’t hit by a plane because I didn’t believe that was a lie the govt could possibly get away with, and if the WTC was hit by planes (undeniably) why couldn’t the pentagon have been also, but after watching the video I posted the link to a few nights ago:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=%22Loose%20Change%22
I began to accept that there’s more there (or less, depending on which way you’re looking at this) than I had thought. I have been searching the internet high and low, and I have yet to find a single piece of convincing photographic evidence that it was indeed a plane that hit the pentagon. Like your nemeses here on this thread who have challenged you to come up with a logical explanation of what happened to the plane if it wasn’t flown into the pentagon, I challenge them to come up with a definitive piece of proof that it did. And if they can’t present an undeniable piece of proof that it did, then it will prove – surely as much as your failure to come up with an answer about what happened to the plane – that most definitely no passenger jet hit the pentagon on 9/11/01. Here is a link to a photograph that makes one ponder: “Where is the wreckage of an airplane?”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a_hr.jpg
and the fact is is that there are hundreds of such photographs that show no airplane wreckage, and I have yet to uncover one that does. Personally, I would be relieved to see some evidence that one of the hijacked planes was flown into the pentagon on that horrible day because I find the implications of the idea that one didn’t to be extremely frightening, and I find it extremely frightening that such an outrageous lie could so easily be foisted on the American public, even such a cynical member if it such as myself.
I will anxiously be waiting to see what proof those who know that a plane hit the pentagon will post here.
ksuave
http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm
when he gets stuck, drag him with your mouse your mouse
Rogue -- You've put yourself in the unpopular position of presenting ideas contrary to those already decided upon by people who see themselves as inherently reasonable. I'm sure you have probably already seen this film, and I'm sure that those who will dismiss it without actually seeing it will feel no need to watch it, but I post it anyway in hopes that maybe someone might find it illuminating.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=%22Loose%20Change%22
You and I disagree when you try to come up with all the reasons of what and why, but I assure you I disagree more with those who think, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, that there are no questions to be asked.
Talk about Mr. Sheep . . .