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.
He said that last year.
Conboy was passed over last year, but I hope he can get an Emmy this year.
Hmmm. All those PR's, and hot tubs, and Depot stores, and Steve still has to borrow $830k to keep the lights on? I just can't make any sense of this at all. Where or where did all that big money go?
Yes, there is one thing this product does, and that proof is also posted on the Internet, by ECOB. It can make huge sums of money disappear. And, it is VERY good at it. In fact, flawless, in that regard.
I forget, who said a report wasn't valid w/o a link? Here's your link:
http://www.wwpinstitute.org/documents/WWPI_field_test_Hilo_Sept_2014.pdf
Based on your criteria, now you have to accept this report, whoever that was.
What? Mold on Eco Red Shield in a Depot store? No way!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mr4fnkjbzxljkkx/Depot_Mold.jpg?dl=0
Steve is a Sole Man.
Add to that, at no time did he ever disclose in his filings that they had been shipping product that they knew was noncompliant.
Hey, who drank all my red Kool-Aid?
Based on that last PR, it certainly sounds that way. Blends well with the PR about needing the additional space at the NJ spray HQ, too.
Dang ol' termites ruined a good party!
While Conboy was in the mood for confessing, he should have also included the letter he recently got from AWPA. The one that said not to stamp their products with any AWPA references. Now why would AWPA make such a demand? May as well go all the way and come clean all at one time.
At least the Technical Rebuttal from Eco's own CEO made it clear that Eco knowingly shipped substandard product through mid-January of this year. It will take a while to come together, but he's sealed their fate by opening both doors all the way for a class action suit. The guy just can't quit talking, publishing, and video'ing. The published rebuttal plainly states there should have been a recall. Exhibit A on a silver platter for the tort guys.
I'd rather take the $10, buy a Happy meal, keep the change, and at least have a toy to show for my investment.
Let's see. There was the pre-rebuttal this morning. Then there's this 'technical rebuttal' out now. After the rambling and revealing content of both, I believe we can look forward to Rebuttal Part II any day now. Can't wait. Conboy is so good at digging deep holes, quickly, he ought to get into the fracking business.
Then there's inventory in a number of places, of wood and totes, wood what's installed, and the list goes on. What a rebuttal!! "Yea, we're a clueless blob, so what?" Trust me, because I am a humble carpenter from Brooklyn, and I sell to Home Depot.
Seems that Conboy is using a backhoe to dig himself even deeper. This calls for another video.
That's why you are the Big Cheese and I am not!! Touche'!
Dave, you make another good point. On one hand their scientists have them putting in half as much DOT as 'required', then they tell them to double it. That's a wee bit more than a mistake or margin of error. They need some new scientists.
Yes, what about the years of material already out there? Where was this notice put out in the public domain before? Some link somewhere where Mr. INQ could download it? There never was a public notice they were 50% off and install base needed re-painting? For a structural product?
Oh, and one other thing, and the rest isn't worth digging into. Where's the Hawaii data? PR's have said they have shipped 100's of houses to Hawaii? No data from that install base?
More hype from the King of YouTube.
Sorry, but I have more faith in research from OSU than I do yet another PR from Eco.
Buy, hey, they got a link, and that's what counts!
And here's a tip for you.
M. F. and C. M. will be working on the rebuttal, if they have the nerve to put their names on it......and get comfortable Conboy will pay them, again. They've been the hired (paid) hacks of the coatings folks for several years. Their fingerprints are already all over Eco's stuff, and have been taken down before on a previous snake oil deal with another scammer.
If you read the OSU report, it had WWPI noted front and center. If they are hiding, they have a funny way of doing it. OSU has to pay staff, so...duh.
And who do you suppose will pay for Eco's rebuttal? The UN? Maybe Eco?
Yes, I am guilty of keeping up with what is going on, because everything isn't posted on the Internet. And most of what is, isn't posted until after the work is done. Case closed at that point.
To your valid points though, Eco feeds on discounted sub-penny stock. On the opposite side of the equation, Depot is a cancer on any hope of turning a profit with those funds. Getting hooked up with Depot when in such poor financial shape is the old story of continuing to dig when you are already in a hole. It is a hopeless case working with Depot for this company in this financial shape and with this management team. The Q-s clearly show that adding more stores makes the situation worse. This is what BK's are made for. Hopelessly in debt with no chance of recovery. Eco's literally blown through enough cash to have turned themselves into the #1 treating powerhouse in North America, flush with tangible assets. Doesn't anybody wonder where all the cash went? It doesn't add up.
Home Depot, probably Eco's largest customer, is known for absolutely dictating terms. That is not up for debate, because it is the big box world. The day Eco tries to ask for some relief on their margins, Depot will toss them out the door and usher in the next guy standing in the hall waiting for their big shot at the big time....paint brush in hand. That is how Depot works. Only the leanest, meanest, most well managed companies survive the dance with depot. When you hear from an Eco employee that Depot is sending skids back for re-coating, you know where this is going. For that reason many/most companies just stay away and find that running their own company (instead of H-D doing it for them) and selling less volume with higher margins makes great business sense.
I enjoy the show though.
Just off the top.....and that is all I will bother with or need to.
I was at the AC433 Public Hearing, as I am at most of the ES Public Hearings on a multitude of AC's. One (1) treating chemical supplier spoke in opposition of approval. No (zero) treaters spoke in opposition (nor in support). AWPA also recommended some changes, and some were included and some were not. That's just a fact from an eyewitness.
When Eco posts this PR, it will do much to draw interest in the OSU research report. More than it has already. Carry on!
How's Eco's coffee shop doing these days? Anybody ever tried their coffee?
Kinda unwinds the AWPA compliance claims in the ESR, doesn't it? Also reveals that whoever is doing their 3rd party audits either isn't doing them and/or doesn't know how to and/or is getting handed juiced samples by Eco to test. That 3rd party agency is QAI, who are the same guys that certified Eco for fire. I have seen that test done in person, and Eco failed to achieve a Class A. How it got a Class A at QAI is known only to Eco and QAI.
Kinda all coming together isn't it? Or coming apart.
The smart guys, TPI, bailed out on Eco's 3rd party program over a year ago. They recognized them as crooked straight away. ICC-ES Suspended them for a while, but then took them back when QAI claimed they had it under control. Shows the level of DD at ICC-ES, too.
Did some checking, and here's the workaround. If no termite claims are being made, then no applicator registration is required because technically they aren't applying a pesticide.
If they are making pesticide claims, as they clearly are, then the plant manager at each location must be licensed by the state, and at least one applicator at each location must be licensed by the state.
So, here's the gray area. There appears to be no 'pesticide' in Eco, but they make the claims nonetheless. Is there still a license required? Dunno.
Just sounds like plain old fraud.
There may be a way to circumvent that 'requirement' with some clever paperwork about who trained whom, who certified whom, and who is supervising whom, though we know Conboy is not one to take shortcuts with quality, right?
But, one thing he can't bypass is the type of DOT he has to use. Since Eco Red Shield itself isn't EPA certified for termite and decay efficacy, then the DOT he uses in it must be EPA certified (at the least) or he can't make those claims. That means he'd be paying a premium price for his DOT, and that is not going to happen. His financial filings say he can't afford premium anything, until it's premium channels on his satellite dish. Needless to say, the OSU report appears to indicate any DOT is in short supply at Eco. The question is what is in there that makes it more delicious that untreated wood. Fire inhibitor? Mold inhibitor? What's left? Water? Dye/pigment?
I wonder how that patent application is coming along? Just change the title to "Spray-On Termite Food" and maybe he'll finally get that patent.
Eco has nothing to get, so the Deep Pockets rule will prevail. Those selling it are going to get stuck holding the bag. Builders, and that 'big box' that Eco likes to wave around.
Tort firms love this kind of thing. Everybody will settle out of court because there are no facts that will hold up in court.
About a month ago QAI did finally force Eco to post the latest version of their QAI Fire Listing (by linking to QAI's website). Why was Eco sitting on it for so long? Because the latest version made it clear that the fire listing was only for Doug Fir. Download it now and you will see the Doug Fir limitation. It's always best to pull copies of a companies listings from the agency that issued the listing anyway, so you can avoid some of the games vendors like Eco play with posting old documents that hide stuff, and some will edit them, too. Eco didn't want to be the one to post the DF limitation, especially when the rest of their literature claims it works on everything. Now they have a direct conflict with their literature and their actual QAI listing, but hey, what's a little lie between friends, eh?
Why doesn't QAI keep better track of dates on their documents? QAI is where you go when you have something to hide. In that regard, Eco is far from alone.
Maybe they are still writing it?
I don't think you understand that this IS a success story for Conboy and his lenders. Just not so for his Customers and the Longs. The only people that matter have already been taken care of.
Toxic lenders will be waiting in line for the next color and new company name. New PR's re-released for already existing locations are opening, again, etc. How many times can Eco Prime Augusta open, you know? More homes in Haiti. Huge development tracts in Lancaster/Palmdale, CA.....and the list goes on. Just change the name and dates on the previous PR's.
For what it is, this is a success story. Never meant to be a longterm thriving company with a strong customer base and product offering. This is show biz, my friend. Check it out on youtube.
Very confusing reply, with amazing compartmentalization on your part.
First you say it works, "I said I am giving that the product works"
But you have maintained for months that the CEO is a scammer (or whatever flurry of words you have used).
It amazes me that you can have no faith in Conboy on the financial side and have said much worse about him, but in the same e-mail(s) you are confident that the mojo he sells works. That is utterly amazing how you can segregate the two performance criteria. Honest as the day is long with his products, other than "arguably product quality issues", yet a clueless blob on financials.
You buy into the monkey dust part of this, just not the financial skills. So again, Conboy is a chemistry whiz (because his formula would indeed have to defy chemistry and physics to work), but you can't admit that he isn't a financial whiz because he's able to get people to invest millions of dollars in a product and stock scam. He's an ace on the financial side of this because he's doing all of this with other peoples' money, and technically has no product offering that works. I say he knows exactly what he is doing. You have things completely backwards.
It is interesting that you give him no credit as a CEO, which he is, but appear to give him a lot of credit as a chemist, which he isn't.
The devil is in the details on Eco's claims, and at times I have debunked many of them here, only to find out this isn't the forum for a technical argument about the efficacy of wood product paint. The current attitude that if it's not posted on the Internet, that it can't be true. You are wasting your time trying to dissect that here.
It's like my posting a year ago. For the AWPA use categories Eco claims, DOT loading would have to be a LOT more than the almost 1 gram of SURFACE covering of DOT that Eco claims in their ESR and MSDS (you have to do a little Math to determine how much DOT there is sprinkled on a square foot of Eco). That's where ICC-ES didn't appear to do any DD on the paperwork Eco submitted. How can you meet an AWPA spec when you don't meet the spec? Not even close to meeting it. Also keep in mind, ICC-ES let Eco run with no 3rd party coverage for 6-7 months. The report said "TPI". TPI said they had no program with them at that time. What good is an ESR when there is nobody watching the hen house. Much like you say about the NJ facility. It isn't even listed on the ESR, so who's doing 3rd party on that? Conboy??
Wrong forum, and way too much typing.
They can get the OSU report directly from WWPI, so all this 'must be posted on the Internet to be true' is just a stall for time.
I'll do better than that. Northern Crossarm is one of Eco's affiliates or licensees or whatever you want to call them. They are on Eco's ESR, and their name is on this blog, too, along with some other companies claimed to be Eco affiliates.
Call them. They should have it by now. Ask them for a copy. You'll have the pics and all. As an Eco investor, I'm sure they will be happy to share it with you. Afterall, as an investor, you are the boss.
Have you even tried calling WWPI? They have so few members, they should have plenty of time to answer the phone.
You should have. Steve Q is a clever guy and been around for a long time. You would get face-to-face access with the folks that are doing research in the wood industry. And access to research reports. Access to a wide World of info that extends well beyond the grasp of a carpenter from Brooklyn that wants to be a youtube star, one sub-penny share at a time.
You'll meet folks from test labs all over the place, including the very accessible folks from UL. Code development folks. Consultants from all sorts of industries that also have lots of research going on. More reports.
Next thing you know, you start getting research reports long before they ever find their way to the Internet, if ever. Or, I suppose I could sit here in my office chair and hope the next big thing pops up on my canned Google searches, but it probably won't.....not if I want to be one of the first to know about it and check it out.
It only appears that the 'detractors' have access. Weren't you just given access, and thumbed your nose at it? Not everybody is ignoring it. There are already hundreds of people that have this report now, if not thousands. Go back to the tally posted of WWPI membership alone. Square that, and square it again, and again. And consider that have sent it outside their membership. Ah, better square that number again.
Ah, Professor Morrell, how dare you write more than one research report during your career, especially in your chosen field.
And I have read another one of your reports, and it's not posted on the dang Internet either. How can you validate your research w/o the peer review that comes from the Internet?
Not everything is posted on a link. Used to be, nothing was. If you are using whether there is an Internet link or not as a litmus test for truth........
The sources are in the cut and paste LV did. No mystery. No fluff. And no disclaimer at the bottom saying the contents might not be true.
Surely you've heard of Oregon though, as in OSU? They do a lot of wood-centric research there. Doesn't Eco have a spray painting place in Oregon? Seems like I've read a few PR's about it.
Steve needs to be calling Home Depot. They will probably see a copy of the report sometime this week, unless a Depot guy already read LV's post of the body.
Anybody else seen the report just out from Oregon State University, yet? Apparently there is something in the red sauce that makes Eco painted wood even more tasty than untreated wood, as far as termite appetites go. It's a very interesting report. Ask Steve about it.
While you are at it, ask him if it's more flammable than untreated wood, or just as flammable.
Been trying to tell you folks.......