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.
Keep in mind, ECOS has no PR machine.
One thing to consider when looking at SP this week after the 8K/PR is that ECOS is depending on essentially a grass roots effort in speading the word. A lot of these small companies pay for a PR firm to promote their stock. I believe it is good that ECOS doesn't have that PR machine at this point, as any spending on marketing or public relations, is more than likley going to result in more need for writing convertable debt notes --- and we all know how we feel about that!
So ... I have thought I should spend some time spreading the word to green organizations, green stock picking companies, etc., to raise awareness on what our company is doing. I don't have any contacts in that area, but am going to give it a try and start to look up, Google and write emails to any organization I can find that might be interested spotlighting in the innovations that ECOS is offering, and make them aware of the 8K.
This board does have the power to make a difference, as we are dozens, and ECOS is few. I believe we are already doing good by investing in this company.
Pls join me in this effort if you have time or an inclination. If you have any suggestions on organizations I should write an email to, please send them along.
All good points Kenny. I agree, and of course I also like where we are headed. One other thing that I really like, is that if is just the tip of the iceberg of one market (poultry)in one country that uses Kerosene for heating.
I like the equation for D-20 even better than M-Fuel, as there appears to be more cost savings available for D-20 due to the use of 24% Methanol. Methanol is much cheaper than the base fuel of kerosene. I guestimate Methanol at around a $1.50 a gallon, and Keresene around $3.50 (depending on where in world, and when). I had always thought of Methanol as "wood alchohol", but recently saw that (Wikipedia) "Modern methanol is produced in a catalytic industrial process directly from carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen."
So, methanol (in my book) is a green fuel, anyway you look at it. Not only does it burn clean as part of D-20, but it appears that it is derived from carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide - things of which the world is trying to have less. AND, it is cheap!
So, I think when/if the the model proves out for healthier chickens, you have tremendous upside. First, in other big poultry producing countries like China. The chicken coop market alone is huge for D-20, but then, any market that uses kerosene, like deck or space heaters, etc. ECOS could make big money, and never have to leave the keosene heating market.
HB
Nice work to ALL doing DD research! I am a bit rushed today (again), but one other factor we should consider in our calcs and DD, that I didn't yet notice, is the seasonal nature of the need to warm chicks. I noticed that Anesong is 10 degrees F today (-12 C), but hits highs in the 80's F in June - August. Fuel usage is likely to be cyclical, and unless someone is storing fuel in the warm months, the numbers we saw of $350K today, and 12M litres in September may be more indicative of what we might expect for the current winter, and gearing up for next Fall. In short, we might be incorrect in using 12 months in our calcs, and may have to cut that in half to account for the seasons. I am OK with that, as the proof will be in the balance sheet anyway.
Flawless: I think we have 3 factors, basically all relative to supply and demand.
1) More sellers (toxic debt) than new buyers. Demand for stock needs to exceed supply of sellers before we break out of equilibrium.
2) PR effectiveness on SP is always a result of confidence. Lack of confidence by buyers in any PR released may continue to dominate the equation, until real numbers start to hit the books and 10 Q. Surf has reiterated this .. they're not real numbers until they book it. Even the Enrons of the world have eliminated bookings from being the final reality factor. The ".. may contain forward looking statements" blurn carries more weight in these PR until those numbers are real. Then it will be easy to believe.
3) I agree with your observation; I guess warming chikcen coops in Korea isn't the kind of sexy news that an average investor will buy on. Only those of us close to the stock can get excited about stuff like that, and we are either already buyers, or are holders, so we don't matter as much as new buyers.
However, all of this is a good argument that ECOS is not a pump and dump. As I and others have said, if they are such, they are REALLY BAD at the pump part that comes after the PR!
I'm joining you in the stands and am going to watch the game and the scoreboard for a while. I've been like that guy who keeps trying the start "the wave" with a handful of pals, but nobody else wants to stand up in a stadium of 70,000.
Cheers - HB
Best wishes to all today. I need to focus on the "day job" but wanted to share a couple of thoughts with the board based on many of the postings from yesterday. For those new to the board based on the recent PR, I am known for some .. long postings.
My short message is, if you are a penny day trader on a fishing trip, please don’t waste this board’s time.
Those of us who have followed the stock for years, know a reality we often forget. Mere1 had a post a few months ago that summed it up really well, and reminded everybody that ECOS is the equivalent of "two guys in a garage". OK, it's three, and they have an office suite in Barrington. They are in development stage, with little or no revenues. They have limited resources. Considering this is the hard work of a few people, it is really easy understand how they might let a typo get out. If that makes them suspect, this isn't a stock for you.
If you look at their balance sheets, PR's and website (that still stinks) you can see that they don't pay a webmaster $200K a year, as I have seen in one recent penny. You can see that they don't have a high paid PR firm, pusing information to investors and making sure everything looks slick and marketable. We didn't find this stock via a pop-up from "HotPennyStocks.com" or a mass mailing. The market cap is less than $2M. If you are more comfortable with development stage companies that have a high stock price, slick PR, and a negative EPS that will choke a horse, there are hundreds of other pennies for you to take a look at.
For a few of us, that lack of polish for ECOS provides a comfort level that the focus at ECOS isn't on appearances. Reason being, is many of the great innovator companies don't focus on appearances. I hope we are right.
Mere1 mentioned how hard is to take a company from development, to production, with three people. He had done it before. I would venture that less than 10 people on this board have ever tried such a monumental task as ECOS is undertaking. There are a least 50 people on this board alone looking into the microscope, and three people doing the work.
So, yes, I see mistakes as well, but I take comfort in knowing that appearances aren't their focus. I once heard that a business didn't want to deal with Jobs and Woz in the 80's, because they .. smelled bad and didn't bathe much! Of course, that we because they were probably working 20 hour days on the Apple II.
Many of you didn't notice or didn't care (like me) that the 8K had 87 degrees F as the temperature, and 87 degrees C in the table, which is more of a cooking temperature for chickens. Or that the formula percentages only add up to 99%. Those are typos or rounding errors. Like the date error, a marketing person would have been all over that. No big deal, as I knew that was a typo and corrected in the PR's. Maybe MS was rushed to get out a PR, because he had known we longs and the SP was suffering?
I humbly suggest that if typos, vague or incomplete information, holes, or missed dates are troubling to you, than this may not be a penny stock for you at this stage in the game.
If you are new to the board, welcome. Questions are always good, but many of the board veterans, me included, tend to look at boards in general as if they are akin to bad internet dating. The similarity is that both use the honor system in self representation. Like some internet social sites, you can never tell a new poster's true motivations, and in our case, whether the poster is short or long, a buyer or seller, a MM, or even an Ahser toxic debtor (we have been calling them Asho's for fun). Over time and consistency, the board is very willing to offer mutual respect that is earned. As I have posted, I consider this an advanced board. That isn't meant to be arrogant, but more of a recognition that the price of entry and respect takes more than the 2 minutes it takes to register and create a screen name, or blast inane messages on three dozen boards, for day traders going fishing. Many of these posters here only post to this board, or have history of dozens of thoughtful posts. There are obviously those that figure they can game the system by trolling boards, and posting messages like "ECOS SCAM?!!!". Those tend to be insulting messages to many on the board, and we tend to shoo those away as wasted time. Many on this board started with our study and observations of ECOS, and offered those to the board, instead of making the board do the work, like a first time posting I had seen a few weeks ago that said "what do you guys think of this stock?" I almost responded, "Do some homework, take a deep dive, and tell us what YOU think about the stock, or read a few hundred posts like many of us have, and post again."
I am only posting this raise awareness, as this board may increase in activity and we may start to be inundated with new posters.
Flawless: No worries, as I have gotten lost on this myself. BUT, if it is as you have stated and $0.20 per gallon of M-Fuel produced, that, to me, means finished product. We have both long held that the real money was in recurring revenue from proprietary additive sales, and so it makes more sense that this would be for finished product than profit per gallon of additive. Since the additive can only be had from ECOS, they can make a nice margin there, IMO.
I believe your second question is not silly at all, and a very good one, as I have the same one. Taking another look at it, the 8K reads: "ECOS is using local fuel distributors to distribute the D-20." To me, that is an indicator that the 8K mention of $350K per month in orders is for finished product.
So, yes, I speculate that additive is only 2% of that.
At my first pass in error, I wanted to just take 2% of $350K ($7K per month), but realized that I don't know how much of that $350K is profit. If 0.20 per gallon of M-Fuel is the same for D-20, then we get back to converting $350K in D-20 revenue, to litres at 70 cents per litre, which is where I think that $350K might represent around 500,000 litres (or 132,275 gallons) of D-20. At 0.20 finished product, we arrive at 132,275 x 0.20 per fallon D-20 profit, and $26,455 monthly profit. That is about a 7.5% profit margin on the $350K. (26,455 / 350,000 = 0.0755)
That assumes distributors and the like take their share in the difference between the 0.69 cost point used and the price the market will bear. What I really like, is that ECOS can up their 7.5% (by my estimate) as more early adopters buy D-20 and use it as tested. There is a lot of wiggle room in their for more profit, in the 0.69 to 1.13, IMO.
That is what I am coming up with, but encourage you or the board to challenge. I made sure my rose-colored glasses are stowed, and realize that the proof will be in the balance sheet, but believe this is the most promising PR I have seen in a very long time. I noticed, no mention of NPU units associated with the sale, but the PR does mention monthly orders, indicating to me these are independent of one-time NPU sales. I have even thought that Monar might be handling production, as I believe Korean and ASEAN countries are their market. IF IF IF so .. Monar might have a PR in the future on finished product sales, along with potential ECOS PR on the NPUs and additive being purchased to produced for these orders for finished product. Again, all guesses that make sense to me, but might be 100 off-base.
I have faith that Mike and ECOS can deliver, and that they have the production and distribution channels set up to make it a reality. I hope, I hope, I hope.
HB
Right on, Rino! Thanks for all your posts as well. For the great heads up today, I can buy Kenny a nice chicken dinner in Vegas for like ... a buck. Even if that costs me an eqivilant of 4 shares, I'll be thanking my lucky stars for 25 cents a share! I am one of the folks that had the genius to buy some ECOS at 50 cents and 25 cents around 3 years ago (bought in this dip, as well), so anything better than the last couple of year's SP is great for me! I am not buying an airfare yet, but .. if we ever get over .20, I am seriously in for some an old school Vegas trip!
Thanks Again! HB
Kenny is hearby proclaimed new board hero!
Sorry Flawless, but you can't hold the title forever.... but you are still second runner-up. As second runner up, should Kenny not be able to fulfill his tenure as board hero, you automatically reclaim the hero title.
Props to Kenny, and a free steak dinner (or, shall it now be Korean chicken?, compliments of HR, at a TBD future stockholder's meeting... if this stock goes ballistic as we hope!
Flawless: Aha! HB likes!! I have found our disconnect on additive profit. I was thinking your .20 was per gallon of additive, and you were actually quoting .20 profit per gallon of final product. So, .20 per gallon of D-20 at 2% of the formula, means that one gallon of additive can created 50 gallons of D-20, at a profit of $10 per gallon of additive!
I like your calc based on the 12M litres. Not knowing the price-point of the D-20 in 2B contracts, at .70 per litre, we still get to: 350,000 / .7 = 500,000 litres or (/ 3.78) = 132,000 gallons ... times .20 = about $26,500 per month in 8K reported orders. We could double check that with your number; 500K is 1/24th of 12M, so at the orders number of 500K litres, we still get to $26.5K per month in profit! Excellent.
AND (this is critical), that IF ALL OF THIS HOLDS TRUE AND THE 8K WAS NOT A SWANS SONG ... the $350K in orders should amount to a future positve EPS and PE ratio .. which I believe light the fuse on the rocket. I have EPS at 317K / 325.9M shares = 0.097 .. minus current negative EPS of -0.035, and boohyah, touchdown .. we are in positive EPS on a penny stock. At a 10 PE ratio (REALLY LOW for speculative stock), the SP would be nearly a dollar by ny calc.
So, let's hope this is all true! I believe Rino's post was spot on, as to why the stock didn't soar today, as ... this is the bone that many here hoped for. There are only 100 followers of the stock on this BBS, and even if there are a few hundred others that read the 8K world-wide, there were probably few buyers on the news, as some of the few hundred are already in (Ahso's), or bought last week like I did. Once this PR is passed around, and the columnist start to take notice, take a close look, and write a positve article on the news on picking winner penny stocks, changes in energy, improving the ecology, etc.... this 8K starts to reach the ears of a boat load of investors. Onces that equilibrium is breached, and we have many more new buyers than sellers ... we will all be (insert your dream, here).
At the risk of being overly optimistic, I think this train is leaving the station. Woo hoo! Woo hoo! All aboard!
HB
Ihorchu: Standard fare for ECOS,although typically note noticed by traders. It is because there is no after hours trading on most penny stocks. When the market closes, there is instantly a huge spread in-between bid and ask, even on slow days. HB
OK, that is the last time I try to post a table on the board! These are those numbers in a narrative. BTW, I used a US recent figure of $1.45 USD per gallon for methanol in the calc.
Kerosene (50%, 0.56 per litre), Methanol (23%, 0.881 per litre), H2O (24%, 0.0 per litre, Additive (2%, 0.0634 per litre), TOTAL (99%, 0.716 per litre).
Go ECOS! HB
Flawless: Here are a few back of the envelope calcs. Let's call this speculating on speculation. Always good to hear from you! I also hear you on the impact of the toxic debt and MMs, so I think holding and waiting and/or buying are both good strategies.
I found a July '12 purchase order with GFE, where it listed the price of additive at $12.50 USD per gallon. See link: http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/120730/ECOLOCAP-SOLUTIONS-INC_8-K/exh10-2.htm
From link: "1 Container supply of additive: 5,000 gallons @$12.50/ Gallons (sixty two thousand five hundred Dollars) Cost: $62,500"
At only $0.20 a gallon profit, they'd practically be giving away additive being sold at $12.50 a gal, which doesn't make much sense to me. Are you sure it wasn't 20%?
No matter anyway, I took a bit of a dive into the numbers in the PR and ran a few numbers with $2 a gallon profit. Conclusion: I don't think much will be made on this deal in additive sales, but that the potential for profit are in the spread between the current cost of operations at 1.13 per litre, and the cost of D-20 at 0.69 in the test data. Here is what I came up with, below (sorry all, the .xls table didn't post in format:
.
Kerosene Methanol H2O Additive TOTAL
D-20 50.0% 23.0% 24.0% 2.0% 99.0%
Cost (ltr) $0.5650 $0.0881 $0.0000 $0.0634 $0.7165
Notes: From the PR %, I only came up with 99%. Using their % and cost of kerosene of $1.13 per litre, the total (far right above) came in at about 72 cents USD per litre in cost, not the 69 cents the 8K quotes. But, I am OK with this as the error is small - let's hope that H2O 1s 1% higher than projected, or this is just rounding error in the 8K.
Projected Revenue Per Month (this table didn't copy at all, so I will put into narrative)
At $350K per month in gross revenue, that equates to about 488K litres per month at 72 cents per litre. With additive being a small part of this, I came up with only 6.34 cents per litre in additive costs. Whether $2 per gallon, or only 20 cents, the amount of revenue on additive is small - I calculated on about $5K a month profit at $2 per gallon profit for additive.
So, I have concluded that the potential is in in the spread in-between the cost of current ops vs. D-20 at 0.69 per litre. With the added environmental and chick production numbers in the 8K, and no mention of NPU sales in the 8K, one could assume that ECOS is getting into the business of D-20 production and sales, as opposed to direct selling of NPU’s. That may especially be true, as this PR talks about recurring revenue.
Now, that is a lot of assuming on my part ... but, if my assumptions hold true, that $350k in monthly orders, might represent sales of D-20, at some unknown (non-test) price point. If I were paying 1.13 per litre I certainly pay a lot more than 0.72 a litre for the benefits D-20 have on production. Even if ECOS contracts for 85 or 95 cents a litre (D-20 profit of 15 to 25 cents per litre .. the profit numbers are substantial from the $350K per month.
But again, this is a long, speculating on speculation. Hoping this might be the case.
Good to hear from you!
GLTA!! HB
Hi Rino1: $2 a gallon profit on additive, from what I recall. Someone reported that figure on the board - I think it may have been Flawless, and it may have also been in an older PR from MS / ECOS. That was around 20%-25% profit margin from what I recall, at a price point of $10-12 a gallon for addative. We'll need to covert to litres to project profits.
HB
I always dreamed I'd someday get a chance to make thousands of chicks hot, but I never thought it would be this late in life and by investing in a penny stock.
Sorry, but somebody sooner or later, somebody had to post this!
ECOS can make dreams come true, even if not as expected!!
HB
No doubt, as the 8K is filed for an anticipated press release. From the filing: "Press release dated February 6, 2013."
Kuddos to KENNYPOO for getting this 8K on the board so quickly!
I believe this gives this board an advantage if you are still a buyer on the news, as my Google searches aren't showing this news or picking up the 8K yet.
What I like about this news, is that the chicken coop application is news to me, and in Korea where ECOS reportedly has production facilities.
I did see a small error in the 8K ... they list the coop temperature at 89 degrees C, which is cooking temp! But, no worries there - just a typo.
So, the other irons in the fire remain viable with this news. I am hoping more good news will follow in the next days or weeks, and that we don't see such a dry spell on news.
Nice work!
Surf: That is a little weird. This is probably not relevant for most, and I just don't know enough about how trades are executed to offer much help. I looked at my trades, and I had two 10K partial fills execute at 3:58 ET and 4:00P, at 0.04 after the 1.78M at 0.0035. I originally had put in 100K at 0.0038, when I saw 0.0031 trade at about 25 minutes left in the trading da. At that time, the bid was already 0.0035 and ask, was 0.04, but last was 0.0031. When the 0.0038 didn't fire, I changed it to the ask price with about 10 mins left. I guess that the others fired at cheaper SP, since they were all-or-nones and put in before mine in the batting order? I just don't know ...
Sound advice! I will "all of nothing" from now on, as I probably paid 9.99 for eTrade for 10K.
I am shining my "Flawless" beacon up on the clouds and going to the Batphone. Flawless, come up for air ... we NEED YA! All we need, is what you delivered last time, a higher SP prediction and a timeline. It's the call of the ECOS Deep Poopoo bird; "Caca!! Caca!!" Save us, again.
I was writing another dissertation, while Kart answered the question! Thanks Kart.
Surf: I wish I knew, and of course can only guess, but here goes... The August 13th PR indicates that FEI ordered 4 NPU 60's, and that 2 were for delivery to Georgia and Afghanistan. This smaller scale unit that FEI talks about on their site could be 1) independent of the order for 4 NPUs, or .. 2) it could be a scaling back of that larger order. Naturally, I hope it is 1) and that we'll hear about the 4 NPUs being delivered as PR'd in the next weeks of months.
I am concerned it might be 2), as that would mean that ECOS won't be realizing the $2.54M that the order in the Aug. '12 PR indicates. Accoording to that PR (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ecolocap-receives-a-purchase-order-for-4-npu-60s-from-fuel-emulsions-international-inc-2012-08-13-81733150) "the other two units are to be delivered to FEI in the United States for demonstration purposes and the direct sale of M-Fuel."
If FEI doesn't have a distribution channel for what they are now calling A-Fuel, FEI may have requested the smaller scale unit, that seems to have more flexibility and is geared toward demo'ing the product for different applications (maritime, ground transportation, electric generators, reducing emissions standards, etc.) than the full sized and presumably more expensive NPU-60's.
So, to more directly answer your question, yes, they (ECOS and FEI) have test results. Monar has them in readable form on their site, but only from Chile for the generator EPC uses. The other test results are with Brisbane City Council for emissions. The test results are consistent with what ECOS has been saying. But, they are only my opinion is that this unit FEI describes allows for clients to see the production process and receive fuel samples for their particular application. As FEI says, the unit provides "...the ability to both witness and produce small batch samples of emulsified fuels in varying dilution ratios in order to test, verify and validate viability, before committing to a subscription agreement." So, I am presuming that if a potential client who has an emphasis on emissions, might see a different dilution setting than a potential client who is looking at M-Fuel/A-Fuel for cost savings and wants maximum economy from the fuel vs. maximum ecology.
From that perspective, the scaled test unit seems to be a good thing, as it makes it easier to demo the product than installing a NPU. However, I hope this scaled down test unit isn't a replacement for the 2 NPUs that the PR indicates have been ordered from ECOS. The small scale NPU may be a heavily discounted item, and doesn't help revenue.
As far as FEI goes, I was glad to see some activity, even if just reported on their web site. I'd say they are still in the game, but that is all I can say with any degree of confidence at this point.
Non-related, but found out that my buy order of 100K was only partially filled at two 10K clips at 0.004. But, depending on next week, that may be a good thing the entire order didn't execute.
Have a good weekend!! HB
Kart: I am like the band on the Titanic. There aren't enough lifeboats to go around anyway, and it's traditionally women and children first. I was admittedly 100K shares of the last minute buys today.
Monday morning before US market open is always a good time for news ... I hope, I hope, I hope. If not, next week could be brutal for holders.
And, the band played on.
Surf: I agree. That FEI news from Jan 17, doesn't mean much to me either. Good to know FEI is still apparently in the game, but that is about all I am getting from that blurb on their site. HB
We are apparently thinking about the same things at the same time! The article I saw dated Jan 17 is only on FEIs home page, at: http://www.fuelemulsions.com/
KP: not sure if this is the same thing you saw, but this indicates this isn't a full sized NPU. If a non-scale model was received by FEI, pls let us know where you may have seen that.
HB
HB Entertainment News "The ECOS Speculator" Vol 1, Ed. 1
In light of the absence of a real PR, here is my lite-hearted update ... (anything in bold italic and quotes, is real, in the sense of the words being clipped from a PR or website)
FEI: Somewhat unreliable sources at "The Speculator" report that FEI appears to still be in the game. From FEI's web site, there is an update:
"January 17, 2013
Fuel Emulsions International receives new core technology testing unit. This small in scale reactor affords the technical team, as well as potential clients the ability to both witness and produce small batch samples of emulsified fuels in varying dilution ratios in order to test, verify and validate viability, before committing to a subscription agreement.
"
After consuming several adult beverages, HB staff concluded that the small scale reactor is bigger than a bread box, and creates at least a shot glass of "A-Fuel"(*). Rumors abound that several attempt to transport the small reactor to clients on-board commercial aircraft as a carry-on item, have been thwarted by Miami International ASA agents.
After several more adult beverages, Speculator staff recall the Aug 13, '12 PR on Marketwire, indicating FEI purchase of 4 NPUs from ECOS:
"The first two units are to be delivered in approximately 90 to 120 days to the Republic of Georgia and Afghanistan; the other two units are to be delivered to FEI in the United States for demonstration purposes and the direct sale of M-Fuel. As part of this purchase FEI has secured the exclusive distribution rights for Afghanistan and Georgia."
Speculator staff used their ECOS timeline multiplier (2.5 X), and estimate the range to be 120 days - 300 days from August '12. That puts us in range of .. NOW, to maybe June '13 ... if we hear anything at all. HB at the Speculator has long held that ECOS is HORRIBLE at hitting self-imposed dates.
* In an apparent attempt to claim the first letter of the alphabet, FEI has apparently staked a claim for the brand name "A-Fuel". Hearing the news, Speculator staff head to the liquor cabinet.
MNAI: Speculator staff have noticed that the MNAI site continues to improve
After consuming more beverage, Speculator staff decides no use in worrying about the tings they cannot control, like Ahso's and MMs. After see a recent posting one-off poster, staff recalls that MMs are just another "X factor" in this game. HB reaffirms that this just isn't a stock he needs to look at on a daily basis.
Competitors:
The staff at the Speculator have noticed that ECOS is not the only company in the emulsified fuel business. Companies like QUADRISE FUELS INTERNATIONAL continue to make gains. Speculator staff wonders why they didn't invest in QFI three years ago instead of ECOS, and returns to the liquor cabinet for lunch break.
THIS JUST IN: ECOS stock continues to tank, at 0.0035. Speculator staff, takes last $500 in Mad Money funds, considers buying ECOS at 0.0038 .. reconsiders, and decides to buy a case of Scotch instead.
This is from my first board post (#3140), novella circa August'12:
"In short, what I have liked about ECOS is:
1) None of the execs / principles appears to be getting rich off of the company's difficulty in penetrating the market. For that reason, they have never appeared to me to be a scam. If they are, they are truly bad at scamming. With few exceptions, the execs rarely sell any of their stock, as they know their fortunes are in moving into production and revenue. They keep sales expenses and salaries relative low, as they must in order to stay viable."
Warning: Chapter 44 of the Epic Saga "Confessions of an ECOS Addict" to follow! I suspect that posting about ECOS is a lot cheaper than seeing a Therapist about ECOS!
I still hold that belief stated above, as evidenced by reports that there has only been one inside trade for ECOS in the past 12 months. Claude Pellerin has been the only insider selling in the past year (1), or even few years.
I can't recall exec ownership, but I do remember seeing that Mike S. owns something in the high 20's in millions of shares. (I want to say 27 million, but again, just from memory) Monar's Dr. Troung owns millions - maybe more than Mike. Claude Pellerin owns around 5 million shares, I presume separate from what Capex Investment owns and holds via loan conversion.
Again, I believe the execs like Mike stand to make a boatload more money by bringing their products to market, than they do trying to just pretend they are moving out of development stage, and making relatively small potatoes in the process. Keep in mind, that even taking the stock price to where it was three years ago, at 50 cents, makes Mike, Dr. Troung, Claude and a few others, millionaires multiple times over in ECOS stock.
I believe this board dialog is a really good thing, and I too have appreciated all the post, as they get me to think and rethink things. I came up with this additional thought today. SEC "insiders" are anyone that owns more than 10% of the outstanding stock. I was looking at insider trades, and saw that DT Crystal Holdings was the last one listed as having traded with more than 10% ownership back in 2008. DT Crystal Holdings is as bad as the Asho's, I have heard. See site: http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1290506.htm for details.
I realize this is not a big deal, but it is good for me to know that toxic debtors have limitations, due to limiting exposer and SEC scrutiny of selling while holding more than 10% of the outstanding stock. One of us could go back through the 10Qs, see who converted how much, and figure out how much each toxic debtor owns. The insider data means one of three things in "HB World"; 1) either the asho's and the like don't hold more than 10% individually (less than 32,500,000 shares each company or 2) they haven't sold into SP spikes in the past 4 years, or 3) they (TD'ers) have sold shares converted at lows into SP spikes to stay under the 10% threshold, so they don't have to report sales and file as insiders. I suspect 3) is the case.
Still, I am heartened by the fact that if ECOS can stop borrowing from toxic debtors, there is some light at the end of the toxic debt tunnel. Good news and revenue over the next months and years, that can bring in more stock buyers, and can flush out the toxic debt relatively quickly at a few million shares daily volume over a couple of months time. Plus, if any Ahso crosses the 10% ownership threshold and trades in the future, we'll know about it through insider trade filings.
End Chapter 44.
I am holding on to optimism, and share that with the board. I'll share that I foolishly picked up 100K more at 0.0056 today, again to average down. Don't nobody tell my wife... she thinks I am saving conservatively for our retirement! We are three sheets to the wind on this one, baby!!
HB
Would it be inappropriate if we start to refer to Asher as ....
"Asho"? As in, "We don't need no stinking Asho!"
Laughs are always good at this kind of SP! HB
Too many years for me as a management consultant, when we used to joke that I was "paid by the word!" Thanks all, for putting up with my ramblings.
I found that by simply clicking on a screen name, I can access past posts, and thus found the first installments of my novella, I now title "Meanderings and Senseless Prattle of a Bewildered Stockholder." I laughed my rear off, as I promised shorter postings in the first post, 6 months ago!
After what I like about ECOS, the following was at the top of my concerns. This was prior to seeing what I believe can be outs from the death spiral, like with Monar. Excerpt from the August novella installment, as follows:
What has always had me concerned is:
1) ECOS leverage of "toxic debt" (TD) with covertable loans with debtors like Asher, DT, RCO and Capex. I almost bailed on ECOS two year ago when I saw TD in the financials. Even though TD has held back the SP, I realized that it appears TD was a way to keep the lights on and pay bills which are mostly sales expense. As mentioned above, true angel / VC money is hard to come by when you can't show revenue. That usually means you may never turn a profit. If I were a VC, I'd either buy 51% of ECOS stock at pennies, for a few million, or provide a loan that was convertible at a discount... exactly what the toxic debtors are doing. Once ECOS does become profitable, true (non-convertible) VC money may become more available - but they may not need it my then. Don't you LOVE finance? Anyway, no doubt that toxic debt is a vicious cycle, as those debtors do better converting at annual lows, and making much more than their 40% in conversion by dumping at highs and multiples of the lows at which they convert. But, I believe in ECOS leadership, and that they appear to be trying to break the TD cycle that is undermining the SP. ECOS must end TD cycle, as they have been at a clip of around 75M-100M additional shares issued per year the past 3 years, and only have about 200M more shares they are authorized to issue (500M, total) before they are "tango uniform" (teets up / belly up. Plus, I am speculating they want to be able to have some millions of shares not issued, in reserve to raise capital if needed down the road.
Cheers - HB
Newsflash! HB Makes Short Post!
Toxic debt = bad, revenue = good
Asher guys are smart, ethically questionable, and rich .. and I loathe them, and wish I was muti-millionaire investor like them, all at the same time.
PRs are PRs. ECOS will release a PR eventually, even if it is annoucing insolvency. PRs may not change the SP much.
Revenue is good. (I know that is repetitive, but we really need revenue!)
If HB is so smart, why didn't he buy Google in 2004 like he was thinking about, or hold the Berkshire Hathaway he bought in 1991 and happily sold in 1992 at a whopping 15% profit????
Cheers!! - HB
Rino1: U bet and anytime. There is an equation I believe we can all agree on ...
That is, that if toxic debt is a disease, revenue is the cure.
I believe ECOS and MS know this equation, and just can't get to revenue .. yet. They need to keep the lights on to get there.
Yes, that ability for the toxic debtors to self-servingly dump shares to drive down the SP in order to convert at lows is the root of the toxicity of the debt. In my humblest of opinions, this is ethically questionable, but within the bounds of regulation. If the SEC starts to regulate and limit toxic debt, (and I wish they would) I just don't know where start-ups like ECOS will be able to raise capital, short of selling shares directly into the market. I don't know that strategy changes the inevitable for a company that is in development stage and doesn't have revenue.
I am hoping .. again, hoping, that Monar is indeed a way out, but in a different way than you stated. I have a little different take on Monar, as I see that strategic partnership as being brilliant. See my post #4153: hoping that "Monar raises the capital to buy NPU(s) through CAPEX or some other convertible vehicle that Claude P or one of the other execs at Monar have access to." That well may be Asher lending convertibles to Monar. That is why I am not a buyer of Monar. But, if Monar executes on their plan with ECOS and begins to buy and operate NPUs from ECOS, we actually have a way out of toxic debt for ECOS and a eventual path for Monar as well .. but ECOS woulld be the first to see daylight IMO. Keep in mind that dumping is for conversion and buyers, but higher SP benefits all sellers - us, Asher, Capex, Claude, etc. Asher actually stands to make more money at a high SP, as long as they don't have loans to convert. AND, even if they do have loans to convert, the still make money on converting at 40% discount. They are happy buying at 10 cents and selling at 50 cents, as they are buying at 0.0014 and selling at 0.005. So they also have a reason to want the SP to soar after they have converted loans.
I also believe ECOS selling to Monar doesn't make good sense for ECOS, as the Monar would then become like ECOS is today ... a company with viable technology, looking for a buyer. Plus, the stock holders, including Asher, may not make as much money in the buyout process. With ECOS / Monar partnership, we have a way to demonstrate the business model in action. So, in that way, Monar is a way out, as they are a controllable path to revenue for ECOS. Monar doesn't need to hedge on buying from ECOS, because ECOS is unknown and financially unstable.
One caution for all who care to read this, about PRs. Keep in mind, that PRs don't make a SP move, other than upsetting the equilibrium of buyers vs. sellers for the stock. I know we are due for a PR, and hoping it brings in more buyers (this board, being some people who may decide the news is strong enough to buy on). But, as we all know, all PRs are 'pie in the sky'. Until we see dollars in the revenue column of the balance sheet, the biggest and best PR in the world may make the SP go boom, then bust when it doesn't materialize. I don't think that kind of PR is what ECOS is about.. and why I like them as a pick. When the 10Q shows revenue, that is when we'll see more buyers IMO. Revenue will help eliminate the need for toxic debt, and allow TD'er to sell stock at a high SP and not dump to drive down the price to convert. Revenue can end the cycle, and is the way out. Plus, that way out makes everyone who is long, very happy.
Thanks for your reading ... I HAVE to learn to make a short post this year!!
Cheers - HB
Rino1 - I believe raising the toxic debt issue is socially the right thing to do and applaud you for addressing the issue with the SEC. I had looked at some of the other companies that used TD in the past, and many boards aren't even talking about the subject. That adds to my opinion that this is a highly educated board. I see TD as having found a loophole in the finance system, much in the same way Wall Street was turning sub-prime mortgages into asset backed securities in the mid 2000s before the collaspe. Someone, (SEC, etc.) should have raised a hand and regulated that market. However, I see the big difference being that investors in penny stocks like us, are extremly speculative, where as the collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and the like were going to pension funds and large institutional investors, not small capital, high risk investors like us.
You are doing the right thing, as this (toxic debt) is glorified loan sharking.
Rino1 - I agree. See my just posted novel on same, but I am glad you are on board, and looking closely at this as well. Thanks for all the postings and research. New and old investors need to have eyes wide open on the issue of toxic debt. Cheers - HB
Hello Rino1 and Surf: Sorry again for the nauseatingly long post, but this has been a topic that has a history. Unfortunately, I don't know how to find old posts on the board, but my first post made on this noard, and a few since posted on this same topic.
I also sent an email around a year ago to ECOS and MS, urging that they avoid Toxic Debtor like Asher at all cost, as it keeps diluting the shares, resulting in more shares issued, low sp, death spiral for the sp, etc.
It is still, by far, my least favorite aspect of this company. As always, this is just my opinion.
But, as mentioned, it isn't just Asher. Asher is one of the biggest toxic debtors, and it looks like it has the worst reputation for destroying pennys. But, there are others for ECOS such as Hanscom, Black Mountain, and Capex, which is former board member and Monar exec Claude Pellerin's financing company. There are also unbranded "investors" that ECOS writes convertible notes with. I believe someone on the board suggested "Rookie" was one of those, and maybe that is so.
I can't find my older posts on this, but I definitely agree with you on avoiding Asher, and also with Surf on this debt being a catch 22, and one of several necessary evils that keep the lights on at ECOS. If you remove the capital provided by all the convertible debtors, the question remains of how ECOS is to pay for simple and necessary expenses like sales trips to the Ukraine, salaries, etc. The statement in every 10Q I have read comes into play, which is that on "going concern" and the question of if ECOS can continue to operate and pay bills. They can issue more shares and dilute the stock themselves, but even at 0.01 a share, that is 10M shares to raise $100,000 in expense money. Double that at current SP. No one benefits from that kind of strategy, and I contend that ECOS needs to keep the Ashers of the world on line, as a source of funding. ECOS could also try to aquire conventional loans, but only if they could/can get them. Personally, if I could lend ECOS $100K at 8%, non-convertible, I couldn't take the risk that they would go bankrupt before they repaid me $8K on my investment. I could lose the whole $100k and become a debtor in bankruptcy court. It is less risky for me to just buy stock and try to get 8% that way, then loaning ECOS money.
Again, I despise toxic debt. But, angel money and venture capitalist money has all but disappeared in the past 5 years due to the US financial collapse. I have a friend in commercial lending at a large bank, and he reports that they simply don't loan to any business that doesn't have positive cash flows ... which eliminates any company still in development stage like ECOS. Short of owner financing, I believe VC'ers run the game for penny's today, and can have their way with them. I believe some former VC'er have formed the toxic debtors we see today. Convertible debt almost guarantees a return for debtors like Asher.
I'll add a more positive aspects of TD, as I have to ... I have been down this road on toxic debt before. I almost pulled my ECOS money out because of it in the past, but decided to take TD for what it is, with a couple of other points of view. Other than keeping the lights on and paying for expenses:
a) toxic debt keeps book value higher. Traditional debt carried on the books would result in a bigger negative book value that might scare away any investors, gaurantor like EXIM and even product buyers as the financial solvency of a company is always looked at by corporate finance before making a large purchase - especially with a start up.
b) EPS remains relatively low. By comparison, game changing companies like Tesla, have a SP of $37, and market cap of $4.3B, and a EPS of negative $3.69. I can't see how they can overcome that negative EPS even after years of revenue growth. With ECOS, I can see a much shorter path to positive EPS. By my calc, $11.5M in annual revenue after expenses can put us in positive territory. With NPU's and additive sales, I believe that is acheivable.
c) if ECOS were simply selling shares to make expenses vs. using toic debt, the dilution is immediate, vs. (presumably) delayed by us toxic debt. ECOS has the chance to pay down the debt before conversion, which helps. I would suggest in communication to ECOS, that with revenue on the horizon, they avoid toxic debt at all costs, but that if necessary to make salesm they start to set the terms of any toxic debt, limiting when a debtor can convert, and how many shares at a transaction. The current notes seem to allow for companies like Asher to convert whenever they want during the year, and however much they want
d) Toxic debtors like Asher can make huge profits (400% as mentioned) in the short term, but we are still taking hundreds of thousands or a million dollers per year, not the many more millions that a toxic debtor and execs of ECOS stand to make for the many millions of shares they hold if the SP goes even higher. If I were a toxic debtor, I'd play with the "house's money" as the gambling saying goes - which is what I speculate may be happening. I'd covert at lows if possible, make a nice profit in order to have more money to lend to other penny stocks, and hold the remaining shares in hopes of selling at even higher prices. That strategy provides leverage of time for ECOS, to get to positive revenue.
e) With 800+ companies as clients, Asher isn't in the business of picking penny winners or losers. They make their money off of both, so I would guess they are associated with by far, more scams and loser penny stocks than winners, simply by the nature of their business. Asher lends to those in desperate need of capital. They may be the business equivalent of a leech, but they are almost always (I'd bet) successful regardless of how the company does in the long term. By default, probably 95%+ of their clients go belly up. But short of phantom angel money, ECOS has limited other choices. Some of those 800 clients are bould to be winners, but very few ... maybe 20-40 of the 800 at most. Asher makes more off of that estimated 20-40, but even if 100% of their penny clients go belly up, they still make great money. My point, they don't care if ECOS makes it or not, as making it isn't a criteria of there's.
But, as always, this is only opinion and subject to interpretation. If this looks and smells like scam or simply a way for toxic debtors like Asher to make money, then it is what it is. I am still a holder, and a buyer at 0.005 to average down.
As many of us as posted before, being an ECOS investor isn't easy (unless you are a toxic debtor). With a 95% failure rate of pennys, being in ECOS is either plain stupid, or sheer genius on our part. Every investor thinks they are in the 5% group.99.9% of people who marry believe their marriage won't end in divorce, and yet 50% of us are wrong. Still, I don't personally feel we are naively looking at ECOS through rose colored glasses. If breaking into this energy market was easy, start-ups would have accomplished this years ago, as the concept and technology for emulsified fuel have arguably been around for a while. If not, the US wouldn't offer the 19 cent tax rebate for using emulsified fuel, which has been on the books for years. Remaining long in ECOS is like riding a roller coaster. Sometimes, I think you just have to wince, grab tight on the bar, and just hope that the coaster car we are riding in stays on the track. Some people get off at the next stop of the ride, some climb on board, and some stay on. I am going to throw my hands up and scream like a child on this ride since I am on board, and secretly hope like hell this thing doesn't come off the tracks.
GLTA - HB
For the longs, here is my continued hope and speculation for ECOS in the near term.
I may have posted something similar before, but the recurring dream I am having goes like this; Monar raises the capital to buy NPU(s) through CAPEX or some other convertible vehicle that Claude P or one of the other execs at Monar have access to. Capex can continue to loan to ECOS, but I think it makes more sense for them to create convertibles notes with Monar. Monar has a direct line of sight from purchasing NPU's, to revenue, with the assumption that M-Fuel does what they say it can do. Since all three execs at Monar know ECOS NPU's and M-Fuel, the chances of successfully bring M-Fuel to marketing for MNAI are ...acceptable. If I recall correctly, Dr. Tri Vu Truong comes from MBT (MicroBubble Tech), and with his degrees in Chemistry and Engineering, he presumably has the perfect background and network to make sure the NPUs run well and as published at Monar. Monar will be in the business of producing and marketing M-Fuel, instead of M-Fuel production being a by-product of the entities core business, such as the core business of electricity production in Chile or the Ukraine.
You may have noticed that Monar is beefing up its web site, which I think looks pretty good. They are quoting test results on the site (see their White Papers on the M-Fuel Technology tab) for Energy Partners Chile on 7/28/2011, which I liked seeing. Their site indicates Monar "secured exclusive distribution rights for M-Fuel technology in Canada and the ASEAN countries, as well as non-exclusive rights for the rest of the world." I only mention that, as I saw another post that indicated it was only Canada. Again, Dr. Truong should be a big help for MNAI / ECOS partnership in ASEAN countries.
That said, I continue to hold ECOS on spikes, and buy on dips until they turn the corner (I hope). I bought more today at 0.0055
With that, my hope is that the next PR from ECOS will tell something of the story I speculate on above, even though that only answers some of our many questions. Like many of you, I am not looking forward to more "irons in the fire" types of PR, but am optimistic this next PR will be more than that and at least report a purchase agreement of NPU(s) from Monar. ECOS has been fairly consistent on releasing PRs, and we are due .. I suspect we will get one in the next week or two. I am hoping that the current gap between PRs was created by the activity with Monar, and that the ECOS PR will be good news about that strategic partnership.
The other factor I am continuing to consider on daily SP swings, is the lack of new buyers of the stock. Even as a buyer, I have gone through months of time where I vowed not to buy more until I see revenue in the financials. I don't know if activities with MNAI and a new PR will result in bringing in many new buyers, as more investors may take the "wait and see" approach with ECOS. As Surf and others have noted, until revenue hits the financials, it is all speculation.
I am lighting another candle today for our, and ECOS success!
Cheers - HB
Surf: Since the last was Nov. 19, my guess is that the next 10Q we see will be around the Feb. 15 - Feb 20 time frame. HB
Re: efuel oppinion
My take on branding, is that until ECOS gets into production and marketing, there isn't yet a strong brand with M-Fuel. We are probably part of a few hundred people in the world who know what M-Fuel is. I personally never made a strong brand connection with M-Fuel anyway, as I guessed it (the "M") was a hold-over from Micro Bubble Tech before ECOS acquired them ... plus the M sounded like "EM" as in emulsified fuels. I'd rather sell and buy efuel, ecofuel (wasn't that FEI's?)... and maybe enviroefuel (see below) than M-Fuel, but that is just me.
The posts prompted me to "Google" a bit, and I found that http://enviroefuel.com/ redirects you back to www.ecolocap.com. FLAW: maybe that has something to do with the issue ECOS is addressing with the distributor's name "efuel". Always speculating, but if ECOS plans to do any direct selling of "enviroefuel" , "efuel" may be to close for comfort.
I admittedly don't know the nuances of resellers and distributorships relative to branding. But, I have put "Premium", "Super", "High-Grade", "Supreme", Shell V-Power, and "High-Test" gasoline in my US ICE (internal combustion engine) cars. By US Federal standards, all those fuels were exactly the same 91-93 high octane product. Premium 92 octane at X station was the same as "Super" 92 at Y's. Oil refineries that produce the final refined gasoline product, don't seem to be involved in how distributors and gas stations brand their product, as that is left to distributors and their marketing people. So, I am not sure the efuel name matters much, unless it interferes with enviroefuel. As Billy Shakespere penned, "... a rose by any other name, would still ... sell a bunch of NPU's and make the stockholder's estatic." (OK, I added that last part.
)
Cheers - HB
Omapere: That is why they call him "Flawless". Flaw is a genius. He surfaces for air, and the stock goes up 200%! Flaw (or shall I call you by your real name Mr. Buffet?), you should end your posts with: "The Great and Mighty Oz has spoken!" Pay full attention to that man behind the curtain!!
I hear ya, and am right there with you Snapped. These are tough times to be a holder, and even tougher to be a seller. Good times for buyers and converters. I also just noticed that shares issued and outstanding are now up to 325.9M. Last I recall looking, we were at 309.? million, meaning that roughly 15M more shares were recently issued. My guess is that 15M were issued to cover debt converted shares. To light a candle in our darkness (again), the convertibles keep the EPS relatively low in the negatives, which will help if and when we see revenue.
My opinion is that although I agree that the SP may have been hit at year-end loss selling, the biggest factor continues to be convertible debt (CD). Commonly used for financing by many start-ups in recent years in the face of the virtual shut down of conventional loans, CD without positive revenue has a toxic effect on a stock price.
Those holding convertible debt, become akin to short holders until their loan has been repaid - especially if the ratio of stock held vs. CD potential in stock converted is skewed toward the conversion benefits. Exerted from the Nov 18 10Q:
From April 2 to May 29, 2012, the Company issued a drawdown convertible promissory notes (“the drawdown notes”) to an investor, in the aggregate amount of $177,500, at an interest rate of eight percent (8%) per annum. The drawdown notes can be prepaid upon five days notice, is payable nine months following its issuance, and all or a portion of the principal and interest is convertible upon demand into fully paid and non-assessable shares of the Company’s common stock at 58% of the average of the lowest three trading prices of the Company’s common stock during the ten trading day period ending on the latest complete trading day period to the conversion date. ...
From September 20, 2012, the Company issued a drawdown convertible promissory note (“the drawdown notes”) to an investor, in the aggregate amount of $112,500, at an interest rate of eight percent (8%) per annum....(same 9 month conversion provision).
If I am not mistaken, all or part of the $290K may be outstanding as convertible, sometime roughly in-between April '12 and June ' 13. I am not sure of how much has been converted of is outstanding, but the holders of the convertibles are likely to do best in the conversion transaction when stock prices are lowest. They benefit at a 42% discount regardless of SP, but I were one of those holders of the notes, I'd want to convert at the lowest point in the year, if possible.
I wasn't as concerned about the potential (depending on drawdown)$290K when the stock price was much higher, as it represented less shares. Now that SP is at 0.004, the potential $290K is potentially well over $75M shares. Naturally, conversion itself doesn't impact the SP, but does cause the company to issue more shares and dilutes our ownerships in terms of shares outstanding and issued. At 75M, ECOS has potential to reach around 400M shares issued and outstanding. When I first invested over three years ago, total issued and outstanding was around 100M. I believe that without drawing this out further, the board can see to toxicity issue. I don't think that being a holder of stock prevents an investor from being a holder of convertible debt. If I was (and trust me, I am not, as I wouldn't be discussing it) a holder of convertible debt, as well as being an investor holding millions of shares simultaneously, I MIGHT chose to sell shares after a big PR when the SP goes up to make investment profit, and convert in the lull in-between PRs, to gain the biggest advantage.
I believe this is by far, continues to be the biggest influencer of the SP. All of my speculation is on transactions that can occur and are 100% above board. Debtors take on the risk of losing it all, in the case of ECOS insolvency. The scenario speculated above tends to mitigate this risk of losing 100% of investment. ECOS needs capital to continue operations, and they have to get it in chunks from somewhere. Therefore, I am not faulting anyone, nor claiming that this wasn't the best option for ECOS - maybe it was/is the only option to take the company out of the development stage with little initial capital.
Now, if ECOS can show significant revenue, and use that $$ to pay off loans before they convert or avoid depending more on convertible debt in the future ... we can all attend the next shareholder's meeting, and I am buying dinner and drinks!
At this point, it is all about the revs. To make a difference to common shareholders, there has never been a more critical time for ECOS to make sales.
My 2013 New Years resolutions:
1) stop worrying about ECOS SP
2) do not worry about ECOS SP
3) write only one post on ECOS toxic debt, and write shorter posts (for yoos guys! )
4) lose weight, spend more time with family and friends
... of course, I have a pretty bad track record of keeping resolutions! Happy New Year, and Many Happy Returns on Investments!
HB
Thanks Mere1 for the perspective and insights. It is great to hear from someone with your history. I share the same underlying faith and thoughts that you shared via this post. Like me, you remain a strong believer, but with eyes wide open to the challenges a start up faces in a huge market. We are aware of the realities ECOS faces of bringing a company from the development stage, into production, with limited financial and human capital. I have been buying and holding for about three years now.
To level set a bit, I have had just a few communications over the years with MS and ECOS. Hoping I haven't given a different impression to the board. The few communications I have had have been essentially inane, which is good. One of the reasons I have had faith in ECOS and MS, is that they/he are very very careful about private communications w/shareholders and prospective shareholders. Mine have been mostly encouragement or ideas to ECOS, as opposed to questions they cannot answer. As posted by KP, the SEC rules are in place to make sure the playing field is level at all times for all longs, shorts, and potential investors alike. My opinion is that we can't force information or request a PR, individually or collectively, no matter how many shares are represented. My take has been there is no point in asking for information that ECOS cannot and should not per provided.
As I have posted before, it takes a pretty strong stomach to stay long on ECOS in times like there of few PRs and fewer buyers. There are days I feel like a genius for finding, following and holding this stock, and many other days I feel like a complete idiot. Time will tell. ECOS seems great at positioning to go to market, but we still don't have the numbers in the balance sheet and a lot of unresolved deals. I continue to think the company is somewhere between the vast spectrum of going ballistic, and going bankrupt. But, as we know, such is the world of penny stock speculation.
Cheers and best wishes to all for happy and safe holidays, and a fantastically prosperous new year.
All the Best - HB