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.
Yeah, it's not the Mt. Everest of a barrier some make this administrative matter out to be. It's more like a speed bump.
When requested, the paperwork will get done. Once "We are ready for a deal".
In the meantime "That doesn't stop us (or ACS or Alverez) from discussions".
If there was a recommendation for MFA/OOBA in the President's NATIONAL "Anti-Hacking Plan" linked via reference to SFOR in the plan's appendix it would be a good thing, a very good thing, for our company.
That's a possibility so I wrote, emailed and called the DNC. I told them for a $30 they could have bought her a copy of Mobile Trust and avoided the exploitation by Russia's keylogger. To be honest I was stunned to read in the 17 joint intel agency report exerpt that it was a key logger that did it!
This is yet another reason people should write the CIA, ODNI and WH Cyber Security Coordinator. Tell them about SFOR's American produced MFA/OOBA patents. Ask them to consider MFA/OOBA for inclusion in the National "Anti-Hacking Plan" due on President Trump's desk June 16th.
Let's help the FBI in its battle with the FSB and help make our country more cyber secure. Write today. Every letter counts!
Yup, the weak grip monkeys are being shaken by King Kong and falling out of the SFOR money tree. However, strong longs have grips on their shares like Gibralter's rock apes! They know what they own!
I do. It was my DD on SFOR IP at the USPO site that first got me to invest in Feb '16. It is the one year chart ascending triangle and 700% gain so far that keeps me here long & strong. But it all depends on your personal time line. I am a buy & hold type of guy following Jesse Livermore's advice to "Buy right and sit tight". What does he know? He was only the 20th century's greatest stock investor. However, I perfectly understand other people have shorter, sometimes much shorter time lines. I'm in for the long haul and big bucks of the second half. If Mark Kay doesn't bring home the bacon by the 2017 10-K. I will then, and only then, reassess my investment in SFOR.
Agree with both sentiments, the optimistic outlook and the belief anything is possible. CCTC's process technology was only independently verified last year. Now the Government is quality checking that verification with further testing and number crunching of the economic model. Those test results and economic analysis may or may not pass DOE muster. With any breakthrough technology on the cusp of commercial application an investment in CCTC is a high risk/high payoff situation. What can I say except, mesdames et monsouirs place your bets!
Yes CCTC could "blanket the globe with their game changing technology." The question is, would they get royalities for it? The answer is, not unless they have an international patent from the get go of their entry onto the world stage. Presidents have argued with foreign leaders about their country's infringment on the IP of US companies for years. Reverse engineering is a real threat until CCTC has an international patent! Until CCTC has one, it should stick to the US and concentrate on expanding its CONUS footprint and building up its balance sheet IMHO.
Without an international patent that is problematic. If CCTC is smart they will initiate the 30 month (on average) process to attain one to protect their IP from international infringment.
Just being mentioned in the same article with those heavy hitters in the clean coal technology market not only gives CCTC needed exposure but a little credibility IMHO.
I know they've been working on it at least two years and it's usually a 30 month process.
Then explain the volume of over 393 thousand! For every share sold there is a buyer.
That's possible of course. CCTC is a high risk/high potential investment. Ya pays your money ya take your chances. The odds in this crap shoot are 50:50. You obviously think you'll lose on the next roll of the dice. You're entitled toyour opinion as others are theirs.
That's some great analysis! Thank you for giving us a rare commodity on this message board, hope.
Well done! Thanks for sharing that with us.
Thank you for that current processing cost update. I look forward to your detailed breakdown.
Ah, dragging out the old, worn out, R/S chestnut. What was it our CEO Mark Kay said about that being to engender fear in share holders for their own personal gain?
Yes, your historical facts are fun indeed. Please publish current ones for 2017 at your earliest convenience.
Where can I get one of those SFOR teeshirts? I want one!
In your opinion is the CCTC pps still under the Soffins shadow as far as depressed price or not? Is CCTC done selling shares to pay them off?
How about both!
Thanks. So you think the Soffin's are finally done?
Big hint, NATO standardization IMHO. Please read the 2/23/17 BBC report of Russian cyber attacks on the mobile devices of NATO military forces in Eastern Europe under the command of EUCOM's Lt/Gen Ben Hodges. The title of the article is "Russian military admits significant cyber war effort". It's eye opening to say the least!
Anybody with L2 how many shares were purchased to cause that interesting end of the day spike?
My background is Defense. All major US Defense companies sign Federal Government Confidentiality Ageements. They have civilian employees with the proper level of security clearances communicating securely with DoD to ensure their company's products meet DoD mission requirements and mil-spec parameters. These Defense companies by and large are listed on the stock exchanges and have common stock holders.
Those SHs are not privy to the classified details, nor should they be.
Makes sense for NATO standardization. We would want our European allies to have the same defensive software on their mobile devices as the US DoD may be ordering.
Thanks for clearing the air & backing RDY2ROCK and me in this matter. Things ran that way when I did my tour of duty at the Pentagon because with software (which evolves so rapidly) it made logical sense.
Outdated info as usual. 2015, 2016, It's been 2017 since 1 January!
No, you can "have it both ways" because it's dependant on the date he signed the Federal Government Disclosure Statement. After he "popped off about DOE involvementto an OK reporter" they probably had him sign the statement and now he has clammed up.
The man is continues to deliver on each of the four prongs on the company growth plan he articulated earlier this year.
I agree. The Mining Conference is either the stage for the CCTC swan song or it's investment winning presentation that the technology both works and is commercially viable. The Mining Conference is where the proverbial rubber meets the road. I sincerely hope it is not a dead end road for CCTC. GLTA.
My take on the recent lackof "talking up" is simple. Eves signed a Federal Government Confidentiality Statement. Now that DOE is involved they have muzzled the "talking up" IMHO.
Dilution forbidden under DART/CITGO legally binding note stipulations. SFOR cannot dilute without DART/CITGO permission. End of story.
Gemalto's SafeNet Authentication upgrade to DoD's SIPRNET was one I believe. I'm delighted Ropes and Gray are going to nail them for the SFOR IP infringment that enables that DoD wide upgrade. Once Ropes and Gray shows Uncle Sam he is dealing with an IP thief, ACS will have a shot to replace Gemalto. Or, Gemalto will pay millions in settlement and royalities. On 5/5/17 in post # 161060 RDY2ROCK unequivocally shows how that DoD contract can take place.
All the pinks I've ever looked at have had under a million dollars "on hand". That amount is usually sufficient to cover operational expenses for several months. This kind of boiler plate statement is what is expected of the small or even micro-cap companies listed on the pink sheets. What's your point?
DOE would be familiar with it also. That's exactly why they had CCTC present their economic model during the WY meeting. "Trust but verify" as President Reagan said. Now, DOE awaits test results to see if that modeling is correct or not.
Yeah, it's the standard boiler plate statement I've seen on all the pinks I've ever researched.
Where is that traditional response "What shorts?"
Not my "say so" CCTC estimate.
CCTC estimates a $9 processing cost per short ton for Pristine processed coal. That is economical.