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.
On the other hand Nomad, just think if the SWET management team rolled all their new shares into a ROTH IRA. They pay tax on .0001; expecting/knowing that something good is coming soon and they will have no tax basis on the profits. Seems like a plausible scenario and one that has been played by IT startups in the past.
The one certainty is that the insiders will file a new Form 4 when they sell, so we will all know about it. So far they have not sold any of their shares.
Have a great day Nomad.
Don't you think there is some merit to the acceptance of shares in lieu of salary? Seems like Messrs. Pickett and Crabb must think something good will happen in the future. And, if they sell any portion of the shares they will have to file a new Form 4, so we will all know about it. Anyway, all the best to all of you.
Good luck Nomad!
Thanks for doing this research Nomad and for posting your findings. All the best to you.
Thanks for the note Nomad. I guess we can all agree that someone has $98K on the bid for shares at .0001.
Slojab, With Scottrade and TD Ameritrade you have to have money in your account to put in a bid to buy stock. If I wanted to put in a bid for 900 million shares of SWET at .0001 I would need at least $90K in my account (cash) to place the order. I don't know how other trading platforms work. At this time, you can buy/sell SWET with TD Ameritrade but with Scottrade you can only sell.
But it's hard to believe that someone is willing to obligate that much cash in their account to place a bid on SWET, unless they want the shares. Although none of us know the reason why someone is doing this, the fact is that the bid is there and it is the big elephant in the room.
Scottrade told me "All or None" (AON) is not reflected in the ask/bid. To check this I put in an AON sell order at .0002 and it was not reflected in the ask. I have no idea if other trading platforms behave differently. With Scottrade you have to have cash in your account to place a bid; so if the Scottrade system is similar to other platforms then the almost 1 billion on the bid must be valid. Maybe some of you with other trading platforms could see if this is true as well. All the best to all of you.
I think emotion has a lot to do with the market. I have seen good news drive a share price down and bad news move it higher; sometimes there just seems to be no justification. Even with SWET, when the company announced that a RS might happen the share price moved way up. Who would have figured that? Anyway, good luck to you and your investments.
The 500 million bid today and 1.5 billion bid the other day sure seems high. I can't imagine what is going on. I guess some might say it is a conspiracy of some sort, but the 'bid' looks real. Maybe it is something good, maybe it is something nefarious, but I think all of us are guessing as to what the real deal is. Anyway, all the best to everyone. Anyone have any thoughts on SFOR? That one sure went from the lows trips to a penny in a hurry.
501,592,100 on the bid. That's a long way from the no-bid doldrums of late. Happy Columbus Day!
Bid has now dropped to 884,349,600. That is a huge drop of more than 500 million. Very curious. Have a great day.
Good morning. On Scottrade I see 1,399,849,700 on the bid for .0001 limit. That's almost $140K! Good luck to everyone.
Homebrew, at minimum I appreciate your wit! I hope everyone on the board can stay out of Matthew's way! Best to you all.
Slojab, thanks for the note. I can't reply privately, but I do appreciate where you are coming from. Have a great day. Best.
Thanks. I certainly agree with everything you said. Best.
Slojab and Nomad, thanks for your notes about this, but it seems to me you are being a bit harsh on Daily. He reported the institutional investment in SWET without editorializing and he even highlighted that it was not a large investment. Isn't that the sort of post we are looking for on this board? Good luck to both of you and to the SWET shareholders.
Nomad, thanks for the note and I appreciate your thoughts on this. On the other hand, I am sure some folks are buying shares of SWET they think the share price will go up. I don't think that means that they are pumpers; rather they are simply optimistic that Mr. Pickett might improve the company's position. I also think anyone who purchases SWET stock understands the risk. Let's face it holding common stock in any company is risky, just look at all the oil companies that went belly up in the last year.
Thanks for this note. I agree that all views and opinions should be welcome. Someone on the board, a few days ago, said SWET share price was once at .20 and someone else disagreed. I looked at my Scottrade chart for SWET and found it was at .20 in 2011. Anyway, good luck to you and the SWET shareholders.
Sounds good! Best of luck to all SWET investors.
Thanks for sharing your wisdom. Good luck to you and the SWET shareholders.
Thanks for the post Nomad. You always have good points to make about SWET. I think Ridered's post about SWET's potential is more intriguing and I prefer his optimistic outlook about the insider share count. On the other hand, Ridered freely admits an investment in SWET is risky, but so is an investment in common stock on any exchange. Best of luck to you and your investments.
I am glad to see your post. Good luck to you and the other SWET shareholders.
Thanks for the note. I appreciate your input just as I appreciate the input from those who have a different point of view. Best of luck to you and your investments.
I appreciate both sides of the argument and enjoy reading both optimistic and pessimistic posts on this message board. I like knowing that Mr. Pickett and the other insiders hold a tremendous amount of shares and I am betting they are working hard to increase shareholder value. Anyway, I wish you the best with your investments just as I hope the best for the other SWET shareholders.
Thanks for reposting the deleted post. Do you know who posted it? It's always nice to have that for a point of reference. I understand your concerns with this company, and appreciate your observations, but I do think Mr. Pickett is working hard to bring this together. All the best to you and your investments.
What happened to that great note that was posted earlier? I liked the positive outlook that was expressed. Glad to hear that others think Mr. Pickett is working hard to bring the project together.
I am more gracious with my assessment of Mr. Pickett but do agree with part of your analysis. With all the shares Mr. Pickett holds, if he can get the project going he will make loads of money. Thank you for your note and have a great day.
Thanks for the note. I think Mr. Pickett is still working to bring it together. Maybe it will work out, maybe it won't; but I do think this is the make or brake quarter. All the best to you and your investments.
My guess is that it was probably the board moderators who removed all the information. Who else would have that authority? Anyway, best of luck to you. Maybe this will finally be the quarter that gets SWET back on track
Hello. Well I appreciate your insight into SWET. Please keep posting on the SWET page as well as others. I am sure other 'longs' feel the same way. It's good to hear from someone who has an optimistic outlook! All the best to you.
I did the same thing. He was unwilling to go on the record against the project or in support of it.
Yep - seems like the DD for the energy tower was done by a real scientist.
Dan Zaslavsky, Professor
B.Sc. 1954; M.Sc. 1957 (Technion); Ph.D. 1960 (Iowa State University, USA).
Prof. Zaslavsky has been a full professor in the Faculty of Agricultural Engineering since 1971 and was Dean in the years 1993 and 1994. Between the years 1983-1985, he served as the Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure. He was the Water Commissioner for the State of Israel between the years 1991 and 1993. His research has dealt with a variety of issues concerning water and energy, including solar ponds, surface and subsurface hydrology, renewable energy using solar hot water units and wind turbines, water management policy, desalinization, etc. Prof. Zaslavsky has worked with other researchers and has patented several inventions. A method and apparatus for disposal of salt and brine wastes, a solar collector for air heating and a device for controlled release of fertilizers, are a some of his inventions.
For the past 15 years, he has focused on a project named "Energy Towers" which in all probability will create a revolution in energy production. The "Energy Towers" project is based on a novel technology which produces renewable electric power from hot and dry desert air. It entails the construction of a "wind-generating machine" - a hollow tower with openings at the top and bottom, without the need for a solar collector. Atomized water is sprayed at the top of the tower and, as in a natural wind shear, it cools the air immediately below, raises its density and causes it to drop quickly. On its decent to the tower base opening, the air rushes through a surrounding circle of turbines which drive electric generators. The "Energy Towers" technology provides an enormous source of renewable and absolutely clean electricity at a cost less than that of fuel-generated electricity. It is an ideal solution for the main environmental threat to the globe today - air pollution caused by SO2, NOx, and by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide gas.
In association with the "Energy Towers", a technology for sea water desalination was developed requiring less than half the investment associated with the best alternative method and about 2/3 of the energy outlay.
Selected publications (Since 1990)
Several dozens research reports.
Israeli water systems policy papers.
Several invited lectures.
Graduation of 4 Ph.D. students and 5 M.Sc. students.
E-mail: agdanz@tx.technion.ac.il
Tel: 972-(0)4-8232319 or 8292746 (office); 972-(0)4-8321076 (home)
Fax: 972-(0)4-8292746
"Father of the Energy Tower idea" Dr. Dan Zaslavsky, Professor B.Sc. 1954; M.Sc. 1957 (Technion); Ph.D. 1960 (Iowa State University, USA).
Prof. Zaslavsky has been a full professor in the Faculty of Agricultural Engineering since 1971 and was Dean in the years 1993 and 1994. Between the years 1983-1985, he served as the Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure. He was the Water Commissioner for the State of Israel between the years 1991 and 1993. His research has dealt with a variety of issues concerning water and energy, including solar ponds, surface and subsurface hydrology, renewable energy using solar hot water units and wind turbines, water management policy, desalinization, etc. Prof. Zaslavsky has worked with other researchers and has patented several inventions. A method and apparatus for disposal of salt and brine wastes, a solar collector for air heating and a device for controlled release of fertilizers, are a some of his inventions.
For the past 15 years, he has focused on a project named "Energy Towers" which in all probability will create a revolution in energy production. The "Energy Towers" project is based on a novel technology which produces renewable electric power from hot and dry desert air. It entails the construction of a "wind-generating machine" - a hollow tower with openings at the top and bottom, without the need for a solar collector. Atomized water is sprayed at the top of the tower and, as in a natural wind shear, it cools the air immediately below, raises its density and causes it to drop quickly. On its decent to the tower base opening, the air rushes through a surrounding circle of turbines which drive electric generators. The "Energy Towers" technology provides an enormous source of renewable and absolutely clean electricity at a cost less than that of fuel-generated electricity. It is an ideal solution for the main environmental threat to the globe today - air pollution caused by SO2, NOx, and by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide gas.
In association with the "Energy Towers", a technology for sea water desalination was developed requiring less than half the investment associated with the best alternative method and about 2/3 of the energy outlay.
Selected publications (Since 1990)
Several dozens research reports.
Israeli water systems policy papers.
Several invited lectures.
Graduation of 4 Ph.D. students and 5 M.Sc. students.
E-mail: agdanz@tx.technion.ac.il
Tel: 972-(0)4-8232319 or 8292746 (office); 972-(0)4-8321076 (home)
Fax: 972-(0)4-8292746
Fire Erupts on Unmanned GoM Platform
http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/fire-erupts-on-unmanned-gom-platform
Let's hope Solos has the sophistication to leverage the Ductoscopy demonstrations by Sheldon Feldman, MD at next month's Symposium in California as a huge business opportunity. It would be nice to hear that Dr. Feldman used a MamoView in his demonstration and that it earned high praise. http://dslrf.org/endingbc/content.asp?L2=3&L3=1&SID=304
Thursday, February 19, 2015
3:35 pm – 4:10 pm
Ductal Anatomy
Sheldon Feldman, MD
Columbia
Friday, February 20, 2015
10:50 am – 11:20 am
Intraductal Therapy MiRNA
Donald Ingbar, MD PhD
Harvard
11:45 am – 12:10 pm
Intraductal Delivery of Therapy
Patrick Sinko, PhD
Rutgers
12:10 pm – 12:35 pm
Intraductal Therapy
Jolien DeGroot, PhD
University Medical Center Utrecht
2:10 pm – 2:45 pm
Demonstration: Ductoscopy Sheldon Feldman, MD Columbia Cabrilla Room
Saturday, February 21st, 2015
11:40 am – 12:05 pm
Ductoscopy
Sheldon Feldman, MD
Columbia
2:10 pm – 2:45 pm
Demonstration: Ductoscopy
Sheldon Feldman, MD
Columbia
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/solos-endoscopys-mamoview-r-participate-155000488.html
Or - Maybe 2015 is the year intraductal approach will gain more interest
The below is from the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation website:
Improving methods to prevent and treat breast cancer:
Current methods for preventing breast cancer in high-risk women include surgical removal of the breast and/or ovaries. Treatment for the pre-invasive condition ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) typically involves a lumpectomy or mastectomy. Many women who are high risk or who are diagnosed with DCIS also take the breast cancer drug tamoxifen for five years. Yet most high-risk women and about 70 percent of women with DCIS would never go on to develop breast cancer. New strategies are urgently needed for preventing and treating this disease, and we believe that intraductal approaches will help us to achieve this goal. Our recent study Intraductal Therapy of DCIS: A Presurgery Study demonstrated the safety and feasibility of intraductal therapy in women with DCIS, and we are planning future studies to further develop this exciting new strategy for breast cancer prevention and treatment.
http://dslrf.org/endingbc/content.asp?L2=3&L3=1&SID=304
http://dslrf.org/endingbc/content.asp?L2=2&L3=2&SID=355
Maybe 2015 is the year intraductal approach will gain more interest
The below is from the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation website:
Improving methods to prevent and treat breast cancer:
Current methods for preventing breast cancer in high-risk women include surgical removal of the breast and/or ovaries. Treatment for the pre-invasive condition ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) typically involves a lumpectomy or mastectomy. Many women who are high risk or who are diagnosed with DCIS also take the breast cancer drug tamoxifen for five years. Yet most high-risk women and about 70 percent of women with DCIS would never go on to develop breast cancer. New strategies are urgently needed for preventing and treating this disease, and we believe that intraductal approaches will help us to achieve this goal. Our recent study Intraductal Therapy of DCIS: A Presurgery Study demonstrated the safety and feasibility of intraductal therapy in women with DCIS, and we are planning future studies to further develop this exciting new strategy for breast cancer prevention and treatment.
http://dslrf.org/endingbc/content.asp?L2=3&L3=1&SID=304
http://dslrf.org/endingbc/content.asp?L2=2&L3=2&SID=355
It does not say that at all. Check out his link:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=solos+endoscopy&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1311.R10.TR11.TRC1.A0.H0.Xendoscopy&_nkw=endoscopy+forceps&_sacat=0
Would you say that Olympus products are failing?