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.
As of March 28, BORK short interest = 0! When have we seen that in the last 2 years?
The sign of a good manager is the ability to delegate tasks to people capable of executing the task.
The sign of an excellent manager of a publicly traded company is not dribbling out information or news about internal workings of the company until a task is complete and there is difinitive news that applies to shareholders. The assumption I make today is that appropriate tasks are being worked to benefit shareholders in the order of importance to increased value of the company.
Either you trust the management or you don't. I trust because there are no indications not to trust and many positive indications to trust.
Thanks for bringing this to the attention of BI management.
Fortunately for shareholders we have a management that is looking into everything in the past. I expect they will make the appropriate decision for BI shareholders after taking into consideration parameters such as legal costs, time, expected recovery, etc.
You are absolutely right about negativity. Every potential negative item has already been incorporated into the current price. There is nothing more to give in the negative direction for old news. That was my point in that whatever Sean has to say at the end of their tasks will not be "negative" news but only positive in that problems have been corrected. Old news is old and irrelevant in this new environment. Remember the efficient market theory from MBA school - everything known is priced into the market. With good management, negative items are just short term bumps in the road. They are addressed and corrective action taken as necessary. We now have excellent management.
My expectation is that whatever comes out of the tasks will be positive. Any problem identified along with corrective action negates the previous negative of the problem. Therefore, as the previous negatives that depressed the stock price are dispensed with I expect this stock will be back up north of a dollar where it belongs. My educated guess is that it may take a few more months to wade through everything, implement corrective action, obtain a formal audit, and remove the Chill - it will happen. I have confidence that whatever decisions management makes will be in the best interest of shareholders for the long term.
If someone knows something they are concerned about then an email to Sean would be appropriate. If there is a valid problem Sean and his team will address it and take appropriate corrective action.
IMO, Long term share value will only increase from here. A year from now this will all be ancient history.
A realistic approach may be more appropriate than a wait and see if any "there-there" show up. The DTC Chill was not put upon BI without justification. I have been a shareholder from day 1 of BI and have doubled down more times, in the early days, than I want to admit.
I visited BI several times and had many phone calls prior to Sean's arrival out of concern about the direction BI was going. I was very close to concluding that BI would not make it because the cats were doing too much business out of the box. Other than the drop to .01 late last year (a take-the-loss-for-tax day) the status of the company is priced in. There has been almost a continuous downward slope with a zero intercept.
As Sean and his team go through the rubbish there will be some bad things found. That is better than OK. I don't expect to hear from Sean until the task is complete. Upon completion of their tasks I will have an investment in a statutory clean company - better than most other companies - and the DTC Chill will be removed as well as other problems corrected. The BI team can then put all their efforts into making money.
As an investor, I can't ask any more of a management team. I hope not to hear bits and pieces along the way only a "task complete" when done. The PR was excellent to instill confidence that we have the right people doing the job. For a 3 month old company management team these guys are doing a great job.
The slope of the curve is now turning positive. Upon "task complete" we will all see what BI can do in the real world with good management, seasoned BOD, top-notch sales crew and superior products. I doubt there exists any stock under 5 cents with the potential of BI.
California Secretary of State has only one entity "ATMC Incorporated" active. They are located at 4452 Airport Dr Ste A, Ontario CA 91761. Manta has this ATMC listed as a private company under "Banking Machine Installation and Service".
The website listed in the 4/12/13 PR is "useatmc.com". On that site the mailing address is listed as 9045 Haven Ave. Suite 106, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. Notice that many of the buttons on this site are inactive.
Back on the Sec. of State site there WAS an entity "ATMC Inc." listed at the Haven street address. This entity is "ATMC, Inc. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS NAVADA ATMC, INC.". The status of this entity is "Forfeited".
OTCMarkets shows Ingen Technologies Inc. as "Pink" however, the last financial statement is dated May 31, 2011 with a total revenue of $8000 and no other dollar amounts listed. There are many filings shown on OTC but none of them can be found on by OTC. And, none of the listed filings are listed on SEC.gov except Scott's initial filing to sell stock.
Bottom line - ATMC inc. PR is a fake - they don't exist. The only ATMC broadband company is located in North Carolina!
Last but not least, on the California Sec of State site Ingen Technologies, Inc. with listed agent "Scott R. Sand" has a current status of "Forfeited". So Ingen is no longer a valid company in the state of California.
At the front of the bagel factory you can purchase coffee and bagels with cream cheese. A table for four would constitute a board room without walls - walls are not required. The coffee and bagels are covered as meeting refreshments.
What a great life. Free coffee, free bagels, and a substantial income from selling shares at whatever the market will bear.
Doesn't matter how many have to be sold to fund the next meeting. They can authorize another 100,000,000 shares as required to maintain the lifestyle.
Why would one assume that an insider sold all their shares? There are so many other assumptions to entertain. One could assume that they registered their shares on an expectation of selling 90 days later at a substantially higher price. One could assume that they found a better place to place their funds. One could assume that they have more shares coming and don't need what they already own. One could assume that filing a 144 will move the price down so they can buy more without selling a single share. One could assume that they have a terminal illness and need to sell all they have to pay for a funeral. One could assume that they just have too many cats to feed.
Take your pick and I am sure you could think of more assumptions. The bottom line is that the private decisions of insiders is private - none of our business. The fact is that there are no facts relating to the private business of insiders and the reasons for what they do. Filing a 144 does not mean anything has or will happen. It only means something can happen if they so choose.
Making assumptions on someone's personal decision to provide themselves with a choice is not in itself a fact of any sale of shares.
In the end, if an insider, for personal reasons decided to sell all of their stock, so what! Stock shares are stock shares. If it changes today's price, then so be it. It doesn't change what is happening within the company. I will make a safe assumption that whatever an insider does with their shares, even if they sold all of them, will not materially affect the price per share 1 year from now. My assumption is that the day to day price per share really doesn't matter. The healthy volume of trades only means that ownership has changed hands. The longer term price per share, driven by success of the company, is what does matter.
Discipline to not make assumptions, when there are no facts to support the assumptions, is a sign of a seasoned investor. There are no facts about execution on 144s, there will not be any facts until the next quarterly report, and even then, only an assumption could be made about an insider's motivation. Outsiders can assume whatever they want - it does not result in facts regarding insiders or the company.
Insider ownership of 5% or more by officers, directors, and control persons is listed in each quarterly report. As of the last quarterly report (OTCMarkets.com) CJ Condon owned 19,432,900 shares and Charmaine Berry owned 3,500,00 shares. Section 4 of the report lists the issuance history of shares. To my knowledge no source exists to document if any of those listed still own shares or how many they own.
The report to shareholders is the 144 form. There is no requirement to sell the registered shares. The 144 is good for only 90 days. The only place data of sales resides is with the transfer agent. You can't find out who sells how much and when because of privacy issues. There should be a change to individual shares owned by insiders in the next quarterly report.
The dollar amount they have registered is commensurate with paying bills and buying cat food - not a mass exodus. Approximately 7 shares of BORK stock will buy one can of cat food. 200 shares will buy one box of cat litter.
Insiders cannot legally trade on insider information. They can, however, file a 144 form ahead of time and then sell after the information has been made public. This makes a level playing field for all. 144 registered shares look, smell, and taste just like anyone else's shares.
The only place you could get the information that Sandy has not sold any shares is from Sandy herself, an unauthorized leak from the transfer agent or an unauthorized leak from BI. Sandy will have to report her total shares for the next BI quarterly report.
Do you have a source for your understanding about Sandy's "no sale"?
My apology, the confusion is not yours considering your source. My source is the Dow Jones Newswire. These 144s do not show up yet on OTCMarkets or anywhere else I can find. Dow Jones is usually reliable data.
When someone registers to sell restricted shares they provide a date of filing and a date of proposed sale. They are not bound by the proposed date of sale but are bound by the registration date. They can sell the stock immediately after filing the 144 or wait until the proposed date of sale. Why there is a proposed date of sale doesn't make much sense because they can sell the shares anytime within the allotted 90 day window including the date of original filing. We don't know when then actually sell.
What you posted was an old sale from Berry that was already history as of the date of posting - it was after 3/15/13 which was the date of expected sale.
There are now two new filings that have very different dates of proposed sale.
1.
SOURCE: Form 144
ISSUER: BOURQUE INDUSTRIES INC
SYMBOL: BORK
FILER: BERRY CHARMAINE
TITLE: Director
BROKER: SCOTTSDALE CAPITAL ADVISORS
RESTRICTED SHARES TO SELL: 2,300,000 DATE REGISTERED: 3/19/2013
APPROXIMATE DATE OF SALE: 5/30/2013
The Form 144 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to
reflect the intention of any holder of restricted stock to sell those
shares. After the 144 is mailed to the S.E.C., the filer is permitted
to sell the shares, or any fraction of them, within 90 days.
Form 144 Data Source: The Washington Service
(info@washingtonservice.com or 301-913-5100)
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
03-20-13 2247ET
The second filing that just came up today is:
SOURCE: Form 144
ISSUER: BOURQUE INDUSTRIES INC
SYMBOL: BORK
FILER: BOURQUE JOHN M
TITLE: Officer
BROKER: SCOTTSDALE CAPITAL ADVISORS
RESTRICTED SHARES TO SELL: 3,580,500 DATE REGISTERED: 3/20/2013
APPROXIMATE DATE OF SALE: 3/28/2013
The Form 144 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to
reflect the intention of any holder of restricted stock to sell those
shares. After the 144 is mailed to the S.E.C., the filer is permitted
to sell the shares, or any fraction of them, within 90 days.
Form 144 Data Source: The Washington Service
(info@washingtonservice.com or 301-913-5100)
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
03-21-13 2247ET
Either party may sell their registered shares anytime within the permitted SEC window.
You should see both of these in the next few days on Edgar and other news services.
The facts are different than quoted in your post. The Charmaine Berry sale of 1,260,000 was registered on 12/14/2012 with an approximate date of sale of 3/15/2013. This was certainly not selling on insider information. I can only assume that Berry sold the registered shares prior to 3/15/2013 as filed.
You may be confused with the new 144 filed by Berry on 3/19/2013 for 2,300,000 shares with an approximate sale date of 5/30/2013.
SOURCE: Form 144
ISSUER: BOURQUE INDUSTRIES INC
SYMBOL: BORK
FILER: BERRY CHARMAINE
TITLE: Director
BROKER: SCOTTSDALE CAPITAL ADVISORS
RESTRICTED SHARES TO SELL: 2,300,000 DATE REGISTERED: 3/19/2013
APPROXIMATE DATE OF SALE: 5/30/2013
The Form 144 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to
reflect the intention of any holder of restricted stock to sell those
shares. After the 144 is mailed to the S.E.C., the filer is permitted
to sell the shares, or any fraction of them, within 90 days.
Form 144 Data Source: The Washington Service
(info@washingtonservice.com or 301-913-5100)
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
03-20-13 2247ET
Your history lesson is well taken. Now we have Sean doing essentially what you recommended in working with a sales entity put together with proven talent and with industry contacts and experience. Sean is doing this on a shoe-string budget with right people.
Your concern about "why they don't push the share price up" is my concern also. IMO, pushing the share price up without an increase in the fundamental value of the company may not be a long term positive result.
Raising share price is not where any effort should be focused by BI management. Focusing on raising share price, when this is a developmental stage company, has little, if any, benefit to long term shareholders and may be negative to long term investment. Not what you would like to hear. I will explain in simple terms why.
In simple terms, share price is determined by fundamentals and expectations based on perceived changes to fundamentals. There are a few other influences I will ignore for now. Development of Kryron with NIJ cert was an increase in assets (fundamental). A small increase occurred with demonstrations at GE and the spray. The price increased with each PR and then drifted down again from a lack of following through with sales. The fundamental value of BI has slowly been dissipating with time as more stock was issued to pay bills. The bump up from BIW was small if any because the market no longer believes the perceived changes deserve much value.
Enter Sean Floyd in place of JB. Even the perception of Sean taking over increased confidence in what fundamentals are left.
I don't see the price increasing much until there is a positive change to the fundamentals. Sean's efforts should be committed 100% to increasing the fundamentals. He has taken a major step in the right direction to do exactly that. When 2-3 POs arrive and can be accepted and are performable, the price will start to move up on both fundamentals and expectation on the delta of fundamentals.
Your history lessons are entertaining because they are about essentially a different company. There many grieving about today's price, myself included. On a grand scale, today's price does not matter for any investor who is in for the long haul. The difference between 1 cent and 10 cents is a small percentage of what we have invested. An investor realizes that loss if he sells. If the price went to zero his loss would not be much more than it is today. I stay because I believe the fundamentals of BI are going to change.
IMO, hearing what JB did or didn't do does not change anything today except tell us how we got to the current price. We are here at today's price. We are investors not employees of BI.
An investor or interested party that believes BI products can save lives and make things better in this world with the spray and wire, may choose to stand on today and look forward. Looking backward is ugly and has no value except to promote drug and alcohol sales.
Every minute Sean spends on defending problems from outside the company is a minute he does not spend on making the company better.
We can't change what happened in the past with JB or anyone else. We can only contribute to good things in the future with Sean.
I am certainly not saying that I believe there should not be anything negative posted. If someone finds something that looks negative, and they think they have facts to back it up, then they should post it. It generates much emotion from the emotional folks, which is entertaining, and it generates more DD effort by others which is a good thing. The traders will undoubtedly continue to pump and dump but that is the nature of stock market participation.
It is in investors best interest to support Sean and BI or realize our loss by selling. In either case let's move on.
Regards,
Flatcat
Why not? Most if not all of us do business with the Chinese. Ever go to Wally World? Harvested Chinese money is just as green as American money.
Where is the money? Do we trust BI to prosper if money is the one requirement standing in our way? What are BI's most valuable assets?
100's of Billions of cash in banks and large corporations.
Of course we know BI can only survive with cash in hand and we trust BI because we are still invested.
The most valuable assets are the Kryron patents. Could it be that someone would LOAN money using the patents as collateral? Now might be the time to go all-in. Sweeten the deal with options priced at $4-6 dollars each. Something to think about.
Expiring on the battle field while slowly bleeding to death will not win the campaign. Time to stand up, pick up whatever weapons we can find and come out swinging.
BI is in a position of strength. Great products. Outstanding marketing potential and no competition on the Kryron market except from inferior products. Lets go forward from a position of strength rather than weakness. Let's keep our eye on the donut and not the hole.
I have met and talked with John Bourque several times. Anyone who thinks Sean had anything to say about what transpired within or by BI, when JB was CEO, has never met JB. Sean was smart enough to keep his mouth shut and wait for the inevitable to occur. Sean cannot be held accountable for what JB did. I recall that he was not on the board of directors and therefore, could not be held responsible from a legal standpoint either.
JB's shares are under control of a trustee in California. The board of directors appoints the CEO and he serves at their pleasure. Shares vote for the board of directors. Granted, JB did not always do things the way they were supposed to be done. If the trustee wants to remove Sean or counter what Sean does, the trustee would have to convince the board of directors to take action or he could call for an election whereby he votes JB's majority interest and replaces the BOD.
My guess is if JB tried a stunt like that, Sean would leave. BI would drift at sea without a rudder until the first big wave caught it broadside, BI would be history, and BI stock would be worth about 0.0001 per share. No rational trustee would make such a move given the liabilities to follow. Further, if JB tried something stupid like that, it is my opinion that the Chill would not be removed anytime soon, nobody would provide funding, and therefore with no funds to execute orders BI would fail. JB is not that stupid.
Sean is trusted because of his actions. He did what he could to improve things (looking out for shareholder interests) where permitted by JB prior to JB's departure. Now he has the helm and only now is he responsible for the ship. Whatever happened on the previous watch Sean will deal with in due time.
It is time to let history be history yet serve as a learning experience for new management of how not to conduct business.
Although JB holds the majority of shares, minority stockholders have several entities and regulations that provide some degree of protection. There is always someone looking over BI's shoulder, i.e., the Chill.
Look at it this way. BI has a chance of prospering with Sean. Yes, and with Sean, BI may not make it. As investors we did whatever due diligence we felt appropriate and decided to put our money behind BI. BI has developed excellent products. We have an expectation of prospering. Without Sean, the chance of prospering is close, if not equal, to zero. I trust Sean because that's where my money is.
Sean is an investor just like I am. BI growing and prospering is what all investors want by definition. Traders don't care. If you don't trust Sean and don't believe he can lead BI to the promised land flowing with green koolaid, then I would really like to hear your alternatives.
With all due respect for Colonel Mathis, officers rarely get involved in ITAR unless they work a procurement program with Foreign Military Sales. The military has specialists that work FMS sales in each procurement program. They are usually civilian employees, not military, although the officer in charge has oversight.
BI would be better served by developing a Raytheon contact. Many of the systems Raytheon develops are sold FMS. The goal is to find a person responsible for business development in a specific program. They are trained and have experience with ITAR. There are company wide people who administer the ITAR regulations who know almost everything necessary for ITAR success. They just might help BI in that they are not competitors and would not be revealing Raytheon proprietary information. If BI asks nicely, Raytheon might provide BI with a copy of their ITAR policy and training materials. These are most likely not proprietary documents. It's worth a try.
One can only hope that JB used good engineering discipline that produced a laboratory notebook.
Trial and error is old school - like Edison. Present day engineering uses Design of Experments. To get a rough idea about how it is done look here: https://www.moresteam.com/toolbox/design-of-experiments.cfm? or here: http://thequalityportal.com/q_know02.htm .
Design of Experments minimizes time, number of experments, and cost.
We don't have any documentation of the properties of each Kryron mix. Each mix should have a specific ID number. Because we only know it as "Kryron" BI will most likely have to prove to the State Department that the Kryron BI wants to export cannot be used to make superior helmets or armor.
Think of a Venn Diagram. The various Kryron mixes may be optimized for each particular purpose but may also be useful in adjacent property Kryron. Heat sink Kryron may not be optimized for helmets but still superior to what our services have and therefore not exportable. Therein lies the problem.
If BI can convince State that the material is not better than armor 3A, which I recall is Kryron's NIJ cert level, then BI may be successful easier and faster. Going this route BI could only export to countries permitted 3A level armor. Since we now have the helmets in the equation, Kryron may have to pass helmet criteria also.
BI may have to cast heat sink material into armor and helmet test pieces and verify that if the heat sink material was used for this purpose it would be less than or equal to 3A performance.
Successful results with State are as much a function of the individual working the problem as the technical issues. Sean is the right personality to handle the face-to-face interface with State. It is a process that can be worked with a cool head and respect. State works to the beat of their drummer, not BI's.
If BI is going to use Mexico production facilities, BI will have to adhere to ITAR requirements. State is concerned about controlled material going out of the US and then being sold to unapproved countries.
The same applies to software. Some software is not exportable by law. Control procedures are difficult at best to enforce. Material and components are more rigidly controlled because the consequences are greater. Specifically, some radar, electronic components, and lab equipment are not exportable because of what they can be used in or they are exportable to specific country tiers. Every country is placed on a tier schedule. The countries in each tier changes with the political climate. Think of what is going on in Iran or North Korea and you get the picture.
The application has to be carefully constructed for success.
I hope this helps you.
If you don't mind I will answer your question.
ITAR is concerned about technology transfer. A non-compliant verbal statement can be an ITAR violation if it conveys technology that has not been approved for transfer in advance. Applications requiring ITAR compliance require training of ALL personnel with potential contact with foreign nationals. Telephone conversations, documents of any kind, and material of any kind are included. The last thing BI needs is to be on the negative side of the State Department when BI plans to export anything.
Kryron powder for heatsinks may be able to be used for making armor or helmets with ease. When the US ships controlled things or material there has to be control and monitoring to assure that the material is used as purchased. There is also the concern about powder being easily reverse engineered.
According to what has been posted on this board, Kryron helmets are better than what our services have now. DoD and State are not going to permit a foreign power to have something better than what our services have. Compliance with ITAR stops that from happening. Penalties can be ugly. Compliance is not difficult but violations are.
Good post. My complements to your group. We didn't peel the onion like we should have. There are more than the three items you mentioned. All of the links and news for JBT and SA need to go away. They have no useful positive value. Hopefully this will be the last discussion of this subject unless Sean has something to say in the future.
What does your project have to do with BI? Assuming your group is doing what I think you are, if the group would like to discuss BI in detail from an investor point of view, who has been in from the beginning of BI, I would be happy to meet with your group in a room at your main building. I can leave contact information for you with the receptionist.
Regards,
Flatcat
If BI followed the PCT procedure in the patent applications then BI should be good to go, I think. I am certainly not an attorney. Does anyone know what procedure JB followed? You can get a rough idea about the process here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty. Jenee was asking about China. She has a valid concern, IMO.
AirBus has taken the wind out of Boeing sails by announcing they will quit using this LI technology - too many risks.
Boeing will have to retrofit NiCads. Anyone have a guess how long this would take given that form, fit, support electronics, and software would have to change? The engineering and approval processes, both internal and external, may take awhile.
BA seems to not have taken a hit on future defense cuts as have Raytheon and Lockheed. Comments from Navy brass about cutting the US A-8 program may not have very much impact due to foreign A-8 sales although it will drive the cost per aircraft up.
Boeing announced in December that share buyback would continue starting the first of February. Is Boeing holding their own stock up through buyback or is the stock staying up based upon fundamentals?
Spot on guys. The wall has to exist for particular customers. This will work.
Serious concerns about Bourque Industries that are not a concern.
1. Appointment of Sean Floyd as CEO required either Condon and Berry or JB's (or proxy) signature. The appointment has been posted on OTCMarkets. A smooth and preplanned transition for Sean becoming CEO indicates that the existing board members provided their votes.
2. There are no indications that CJ is "missing in action". I spoke with her 5 minutes ago. She is doing well and working hard, like the rest of the BI folks to enhance BI's business. Some may want proof but there is no requirement for CJ to issue any statement.
3. "Every single director" did not jump ship in December. OTCMarkets still lists Condon, Berry, and JB as directors of BI.
4. The treasury was not liquidated. As in most developmental level companies, people were paid in treasury stock for their services. Some have registered their stock and sold to pay personal bills.
5. How much as CJ and JB's trust "dumped" in the past 60 days? Swiss Dynasty Trust: 2/6/13 3568 shares sold out of 43,001,418 owned, Charmaine Berry, Director, 1,260,000 out of 3,500,000 owned, CJ Condon 1,570,524 out of 18,250,000 owned. Given what the volumes have been these are a drop in the bucket. They didn't get very much for their stock but likely enough to pay bills. JB is not gone and he is not selling out his stock. The only way someone from the outside could take over BI is if JB sold his holdings. He still owns controlling interest in BI. His holdings are in the hands of a trustee, Swiss Dynasty Trust in Los Angeles that can vote his stock. Jared Metz has the authority to appoint Sean as CEO.
6. Ironbridge is not a "majority" shareholder, JB is the majority shareholder. Ironbridge's holdings do not convey any right to "short" BI stock. Shorting is the right of any investor in accordance with FINRA rules. According to ShortSqueeze and OTCMarkets, the most recent short report indicates that only 17,760 shares were short on 1/31 which is a drop of -10.88% from the previous report on 1. This number of shares would clear in a few trades on any given day.
7. It is easy to play with the short numbers and percentage. On 12/31/12 there were 1805 shares short. On 1/15/13 there were 19,928 shares short. on 1/31/13 there were 17760 shares short. Concern about this small number of shares short is unfounded.
8. OTCMarkets does, in fact, indicate Sean Floyd as CEO. Posting of an 8K filing does not happen overnight. There is nothing to indicate that an 8K has not been filed. The SEC takes things in order. Penny stocks are at the bottom of the pile. 8Ks are not always published in PR announcements. Asking a question and then assuming a negative answer does not make it a fact. There are no facts to support a non-filing of an 8K.
9. JBT issued a letter of intent (LOI) followed by a PO. The LOI is not a contract. The PO is not a contract unless accepted by BI. If the LOI was made a material part of the PO then the LOI will have to be revised in order for BI to perform. Trying to pick through the details of a business to business transaction without any factual knowledge will usually produce wrong conclusions. Investors do not have the right to knowledge of ongoing business negotiations of BI. This would be insider trading.
10. The Chill is of concern to me also. I am more concerned about why the Chill was put in place to begin with. I know that some people have provided detailed false accusations against BI. In addition, competitors are very concerned about BI becoming successful. With the likes of Dick Cheney having a significant financial interest in BI failing, I expect under the table actions.
11. Sean's qualifications for the CEO position are not in question. LinkedIn has no requirement to list everything. Any good resume consulting company will assist prospective employees to tailor their resume for the audience. As a manager, I have sifted through hundreds of resumes for $80K plus positions. Resumes are only designed to get an interview. Resumes are used to get an interview. The job application contains all the gory details on which an applicant must disclose everything. They are controlled within the company as "company private" and are never disclosed outside of management. Wordsmithing on resumes is a refined art with professionals paid large sums to assist prospective applicants to get an interview. Management looks at the resume to see if there is any interest. If yes, then they look at the application. As far as Sean holding a valid real estate license, I have seen many engineers, including PHDs, who hold a valid real estate license. There are many personal reasons for keeping a current real estate license. Sean, or his family, may have real estate investments for which Sean provides the real estate expertise. That is his business, not ours.
Given the millions of shares that have changed hands in the past few months, the day traders have been having a field day. This has been based upon speculation rather than fact. It certainly has not been due to insiders selling.
Quoted out of context.
Your post:
"I totally agree that lacking John Bourque's direct involvement in current and future advances in the Kryron process, this company has enough today to acquire sales with companies that "doesn't require so much hand holding.""
I did not say anything about John Bourque's direct involvement in current and future advances in the Kryron process. The kind of hand holding JBT was asking for in their LOI is not appropriate for a customer, IMO. If Kryron has a lower thermal resistance and less weight than stock aluminum and is useful as heat sink material then the market is much bigger than a single LED manufacturer.
Now I will say a few words about John Bourque.
Any competent engineer keeps an engineering notebook that documents all work performed. Without the notebook and documented processes, it would not be possible to accurately duplicate what has been discovered. The notebooks are protected as valuable intellectual property by the company. John Bourque is obviously a very competent engineer and therefore, the engineering notebooks for Kryron exist.
JB has already accomplished the hard part - development of Kryron. Optimization of the secret sauce for lowest thermal resistance is not rocket science. It is a straight forward engineering process that many MS engineering or physics graduates, with experience, are competent to handle even though they did not develop the original Kryron process.
Contrary to what JBT may believe, John Bourque's personal hand is not required to provide them with optimized Kryron. I state this as fact based on many years working as a senior scientist, engineering fellow, professional engineer, and teaching math, physics, and engineering at the college level. A 35-40 year old top-notch materials engineer with an MS degree and the right experience can handle the job.
The same, well known engineering processes, can be used to optimize Kryron for electrical conductivity, strength, expansion coefficients, corrosion, or any other parameter.
I am most impressed with CPT Brent Willis's background. He and I worked on many of the same programs. CPT Willis is a graduate engineer with experience. He will ask the right questions and provide the appropriate guidance for successful BI engineering.
The quality of people selected for board members and the smooth transition speaks well for the advance planning accomplished by JB and Sean.
GotMilk, if you are so inclined, I suggest that a simple update of the names and management positions might be more appropriate for the sticky note than looking backward at the cow pasture we just walked through.
The Chief Technical Officer of any company is the person so designated by the CEO and/or board of directors. There is no requirement that a company have a designated CTO.
It is fortunate that the company had foresight to have the succession of management established ahead of time and ready for announcement at the appropriate time. Therefore it can be concluded that BI also planned ahead of time for succession of technical resources necessary to continue BI's business. It would not make sense to plan one without the other. Sean would not likely accept the designation as CEO if he did not have the technical resources to succeed.
A designation of "Chief Scientist" does not convey knowledge but acknowledges the competence of the individual in the engineering/scientific field but is not a prerequisite to function as a "Chief Scientist". A "qualified person" is anyone who possesses the necessary skills to fulfill the needs of BI as determined by the management of BI. BI is fortunate to be located near the University of Arizona where ample "qualified" persons exist. The employment of such a person does not need to be made public.
Kryron performance speaks for itself. If JBT decides to completely back out of the LOI and the PO, due to current circumstances, then it is JBT's loss. The success of BI is not dependent on any one customer. If Kryron provides the performance JBT was interested in then there are many other LED manufacturing companies around the globe who will take their place. The success or failure of BI is based upon Kryron performance - not on one person or one company.
Knowing what BI knows now, it may be in BI's best interest to respectfully decline a contract with JBT because of what they put in their LOI. An LOI outlines the intent of one party toward another with regard to an agreement, and may only be signed by the party expressing that intent. We don't know if BI accepted the LOI or the PO. Acceptance of the LOI by BI was a requirement but would require an MOU or contract to make it official and binding, i.e. a document signed by both companies. Given the current situation, BI may consider not accepting the PO from JBT based upon the wording of the LOI. The present circumstances of JB's availability were not under control of BI and BI, as a stand alone entity, will do what they have to do to move on.
If BI does not get JBT's business because JB is not available so be it. Life goes on. A LED company that doesn't require so much hand holding might be a better choice.
Moderators: An update to this sticky note would be appropriate.
A simple answer to your question.
Sean recognized an excellent opportunity to contribute his expertise to a development stage company and grow professionally and financially. Since Sean arrived at BI, the company has vastly improved on company conduct regarding leaks, rumors and dealing with destructive competitors. The professional execution of the management change was a real comfort to my investment.
This is Sean's first day as CEO. It is appropriate to give him some time to function in his job before passing judgement or trying to hold him accountable for past actions. This essentially is a new company as of today. They have good products, good sales prospects, and good management. Shareholders voted today, with their money, to have confidence in the new management. The sooner we let go of the past and move on the sooner we get to positive revenue flow, profits, and higher price per share.
According to TDAmeritrade, their restriction on buying BORK is an internal policy decision. ETRADE or Fidelity will allow purchase of BORK. If you like the TS platform, keep some funds with TDA and open a second account with one of the others mentioned. Even when the chill is removed there is no expectation on when TDA will update their policy.
According to Arizona Revised Statutes, an Arizona judge does not have the authority to modify the required jail time if a person is convicted of a DUI. There are mandatory sentence requirements that must be served and get very ugly for subsequent violations within the statutory window.
I also question the validity of this email. It doesn't make sense that this type of email would be made public. Since the judge has no leeway in this type of case, such an email has no value except to aggravate the judge. It might have had value with the prosecutor in a plea bargain, but once convicted, the judge cannot deviate from sentence requirements of the law.
The only good outcome of this is a "not guilty" finding.
Arizona Revised Statutes are available online.
There is nothing wrong with trading the charts. Some live and die by charts. Until the DTC chill comes off we probably won't see a lot of sustained price movement on the up side.
Barry has 1,850,000 to sell by January 31 and 1,260,000 by March 15!
This is not negative but just a fact. I want to see it go up as much as the rest but carefully weighing the facts as they are.
What is the market or BI saying? There has not been any news of late except unaudited financials and tidbits about another sales company. Did BI get some outside funding? Just trying to understand the upward pressure on the PPS. Any thoughts?
The top reference in the I-box, about full reporting, is not a valid link. Is audited reporting still on the table sometime soon?
Batteries or the aircraft or both could be the problem.
Contamination of battery materials, testing of batteries, specifications of batteries could be lacking proper environmental requirements, and many more items. The ultimate responsibility remains with boeing. The prime contractor has to manage the specifications and their vendors. As long as the vendor met the specifications provided by boeing then they are off the hook. This could be a boeing problem or a vendor problem.
It is way to early to jump to any conclusions when none of us investors have data or expertise to make a call. Very smart engineers will make the call and fix the problem whatever it is.
Boeing will pay dearly for this problem so I think short term PPS will suffer. Long term boeing will be just fine.
You are right, ATLLivn does not shave the truth. As a long time investor in BI, I am very pleased with the stealth mode of BI in not spreading unfounded rumors about what is not factual. I am even more pleased about ATLLivn's dedication to move his family to Tucson and commit to making BI a viable company.
The PPS is what it is. Neither ATLLivn nor JB control what the PPS is. A startup is a startup and I don't expect to hear rumors about what might be but I expect to hear what is factual when deemed appropriate by company management. The success of BI depends on not only successful development of a product but overcoming competitive forces that want to drive the company out of existence.
Although I am heavily underwater on my BI investment, I am willing to wait for dinner and not bang my knife and fork on the table.
IMO, JB and Sean have conducted themselves in an appropriate manner to limit public comments to facts only. Whatever Sean gets in return for his work with BI is compensation well deserved. Whatever JB gets in compensation for development of Kryron and making this opportunity available for the rest of us I applaud. I feel a little guilty for piggybacking on JB and Sean as their product becomes successful. I didn't think of Kryron and didn't commit to BI to make it successful other than to make funds available. But, having committed funds to BI, I will reap the rewards when my investment pays off.
I don't shed a tear for Sean but understand. I have been in his position in product development. The price is higher than you can imagine. It is hard on his family but his children will be better off for the immediate sacrifice.
"All" is not ever good or bad. I will take the good and bad, weight the two and decide when to buy and sell like most other investors.
Flatcat
Something is different about both of Charmaine's registrations as compared to John Bourque's filing. Details - details. Notice that JB's filing was approximately the same day he expected to sell the stock. He probably needed the money.
Charmaine's expected date to sell the first block is the end of January 2013. The second block is expected to sell approximately March 15, 2013.
If something is going to happen, it would make sense to register the shares very early to get the news out of the way. Planning to sell next year at the end of January and middle of March may be our first indication that something is going to finally happen. It makes no sense to me that if Charmaine is going to dump his shares, that he would announce it this early. I don't think he would sell on insider information. There is nothing I know of that would be wrong with registration on insider information. The selling may come after public information is available.
There are plenty of other shares out there that may be selling off because the owner thinks BI will not make it.
One of two things should happen to indicate there is life in Borkland. Either the chill comes off or an updated financial filing or both. Lacking either one of these soon, then BI may not make it.
You are in for a real surprise. Expect this stock to climb rapidly in the next quarter due to games being played by management and the market.
AIQ is scheduled for a 1:5 reverse split effective December 25. They are playing the same game than THC did the last quarter. AIQ's earnings per share are going to go up as is their price per share. One can assume from this that they are going to have a positive quarter.
What happens when the reverse split is history is that the loss last quarter of $-0.02 becomes $-0.10. The earnings for their new "positive" quarter go up by a factor of 5 per share. Wow - what a wonder job we have done manipulating the stock price and earnings.
In the THC case the PE ratio is about 50 for a poorly managed company but the executives are harvesting from the investors. See the news items of insider selling. You can expect the same situation here. AIQ executives than own buy right after the earnings announcement and then get out near the top.
This scenario will squeeze the shorts hard. It will be another quarter or two before the market catches up with the deception. If you are short this stock then you will just help them push the price higher. This is a game and you don't get to make the rules.
Based upon THC, I would buy after the next earnings, they should be positive, ride it up and get out. I do not have a position in this stock.
The market rewards for bad behavior.
Most trading platforms will show the previous "actual earnings" as $1.06. Because Citi managements screwed up big time they actually had a very bad quarter. Look at their 10Q - earnings were only $0.17. Wall Street Horizon, who supplies data to trading platforms and brokers, shows the earnings as $1.06.
Anyone see the news release on October by Greg Morcroft of MarketWatch:
"Citigroup's third-quarter net profit fell 88% to $468 million as the company (C) took charges tied to the value of its debt and the sale of a stake in its brokerage joint-venture, but core revenue in its main businesses continued to improve.
Nomura Securities analyst Glenn Schorr told clients that there were signs of "mostly progress" for Citigroup in its quarterly results.
The charges took a toll on revenue, which shrank 33% from a year earlier, to $14 billion. Excluding the charges and a tax benefit, Citigroup would have posted $1.06 a share in earnings and $19.4 billion revenue, up 3% from a year earlier and higher than analysts had expected."
The big boys want the market to see what a wonderful job they and Citi have done. There are no penalties for screwing up. The "actual earnings" as posted by Credit Suisse are $1.06. Earnings posted on Dow Jones are $0.17.
Wall Street Horizon screws with the data to show earnings better than the bottom line so the brokers can take our money. This is just one example of price manipulation by Wall Street Horizon - some are much worse where they leave off extraordinary income when negative and include it when positive. In each case the stock price has skewed just like the skewed data.
Even CitiBank's 10Q is not hard to read. The earnings per share are near the top.
The Great Deception by THC
Look at earnings per diluted share in SEC 10Q for quarter ending 6/30/12. Add the two lines for current operations and discontinued operations. You will see that they actually lost $0.01! Here is the really strange part about how this stock price has been manipulated:
1. Analysts use only the "current operations" part of the earnings per share to write their glowing praise of THC.
2. My trading platform charts display earnings of $0.10 for quarter ending 6/30/12. Analysts have adjusted the $0.10 to $0.40, due to the 1:4 split. So now they have turned a loss into a substantial gain.
3. My trading platform displays earnings of $0.37 for current quarter ending 9/30/12. In this case look at the SEC 10Q for quarter ending 9/30/12. You will see that this time they added earnings from current operations($0.28) to discontinued operations($0.09) to get the $0.37.
4. THC issued a press release on 11/7/12 claiming the $0.37 as earnings. Remember this is after the 1:4 split which shows a higher profit per share. On a unadjusted basis, without the 1:4 split this is equivalent to $0.09 per share. Remember in this case they claimed both the current operations and discontinued operations because they made money on the discontinued operations. Seems they only include discontinued operations if it helps to inflate their price. When they have a loss then it is just ignored!
5. After you look at your platform for earnings posted for quarter ending 6/30/12, you will see either $0.00 which is the loss adjusted for the reverse split; $-0.01, which is the unadjusted correct value (unsplit basis); $0.10, which is current operations only (unsplit basis); or $0.40, which is current operations adjusted for the 1:4 split as used by analysts.
IMO, THC new about data services picking up on the current operations only figure and decided a reverse split would make quarter ending 9/30/12 look really good especially if they included the gain from discontinued operations which inflated the earnings by $0.09. If they had not done the reverse split, and assuming we are going to deal apples to apples, (current operations only) they actually made less in the current quarter than the last!!!!! Current operations earnings for quarter ending 9/30/12 was only $0.28, which is equivalent to 0.07 on an un-split basis. (See 10Q)
It appears from other news items that insiders have taken considerable advantage on this situation. Notice that even the CFO bought a large block of shares before the stock took off.
I would be most interested it know what your platform displays for earnings for the past two quarters.
In addition, it appears that THC management has used the stock to transfer cash from the company to the executives by the company purchasing stock from the executives. This scheme permits the executives to receive substantial income, at inflated prices, from their stock at 15% tax rate, flushing out the shorts, and then selling treasury stock at inflated prices. This sure looks like a classic pump and dump in a midcap stock!