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.
It's strange indeed. I thought it maybe had anything to do with the design change of the otcmarkets website, but I can not find any other companies with the same security details.
Could it have anything to do with a possible merger?
It also says: "The company’s transfer agent has verified its outstanding shares directly to OTC Markets."
Maybe some in the US can call to them to verify?
I think it’s due to the lack of real information
You got me there. It’s my lack off knowledge of the english language mostly.
What I ment was, they are the only ones sueing the defendants for patent infringement.
Sorry for potentially poor English in this reply too (no offense ment, about your reply) but I’m not behind my computerat this time, so I got no spell-check on.
(See this file https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-wgqElPW1zs-p7im100KSmHm1FJakgby/view)
BTZO (Named by Eduwhitesox) isn't part of the lawsuit. They are only connected because it seems they might own a large piece of GERS.
GERS is the only appellant
PEIX is one of the defendants. I've been watching and ownng them for a long time. Also I follow their message board. Which seems close to dead. PEIX isn't however.
They never reacted to any speculations in the lawsuit on PPS.
The same goes for Aemetis. I believe those are the only two that are publicly traded and sued so far.
Thanks, always good to read the facts and your opinion about them.
Could it be they are anticipating on the defendants to open their cards in their favor? This is just (as we would say in Dutch) Initial shelling, is't it?
I don't expect a sell-off. I think that the larger shareholder, who have been holding for a long time, knew the risk all along. Even if they don't like what they read, I think most of them haven't been holding this long to jump out now.
The negative language might be to set things sharp. They want to let the court and everybody else know they are frustrated and they want the court to be absolutely well informed about the importance of the facts. If the court allows hem this to start from, it might make them stronger in the overall case IMO.
I didn't read the complete document, since it's a bit to hard to understand all details for me, so is there any part that makes you worry the most?
I see Stroock & Stroock is representing them again. I don't know if they are hired by Cantor Colburn? CC isn't namedin this document.
I also don't know what the link was, to the official page where it say's who represents who.
As always like expected:
Pacific Ethanol beats by $0.10, misses on revenue
Pacific Ethanol Reports First Quarter 2018 Results
SACRAMENTO, Calif., May 08, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pacific Ethanol, Inc. (NASDAQ:PEIX), a leading producer and marketer of low-carbon renewable fuels and high-quality alcohol products in the United States, reported its financial results for the three months ended March 31, 2018.
Neil Koehler, Pacific Ethanol’s president and CEO, stated: “Production margins in the ethanol industry during the first quarter improved slightly from the fourth quarter of 2017 but remained compressed, as ethanol inventories reached an historic high in early March. The fundamentals have improved since then due to strong exports, higher fuel demand, and moderating overall ethanol production. Ethanol inventories have fallen nine percent over the last two months and are now five percent lower than last year at this time. We are optimistic the improved supply and demand balance will result in margin improvements as we enter the peak demand season.
“Overall, the long-term fundamentals in our markets are getting stronger. Demand for our low carbon ethanol and high protein feed products is increasing both nationally and internationally. We continue to focus on product diversification and technology innovation to improve our operating efficiencies and financial performance.”
Financial Results for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2018 Compared to 2017
Net sales were $400.0 million, compared to $386.3 million. The increase was due to an increase in production gallons sold offset in part by a reduction in both third-party gallons sold and in our average ethanol sales price per gallon.
Total gallons sold of 232.7 million, compared to 226.2 million.
Total production gallons sold of 140.8 million, compared to 115.0 million.
Cost of goods sold was $396.7 million, compared to $392.1 million.
Gross profit was $3.4 million, compared to gross loss of $5.8 million.
Selling, general and administrative expenses were $9.3 million, compared to $5.5 million, which included $3.6 million in one-time gains associated with legal matters in the prior year.
Operating loss was $6.0 million, compared to $11.2 million.
Net loss available to common stockholders was $8.2 million, or $0.19 per share, compared to $12.9 million, or $0.31 per share.
Adjusted EBITDA was $5.7 million, compared to Adjusted EBITDA of negative $1.9 million.
Cash and cash equivalents were $57.4 million at March 31, 2018, compared to $49.5 million at December 31, 2017.
First Quarter 2018 Results Conference Call
Management will host a conference call at 8:00 a.m. Pacific Time/11:00 a.m. Eastern Time on May 9, 2018. CEO Neil Koehler and CFO Bryon McGregor will deliver prepared remarks followed by a question and answer session.
The webcast can be accessed from Pacific Ethanol's website at www.pacificethanol.com. Alternatively, you may dial the following number up to ten minutes prior to the scheduled conference call time: (877) 847-6066. International callers should dial 00-1 (970) 315-0267. The pass code will be 8857956. If you are unable to participate on the live call, the webcast will be archived for replay on Pacific Ethanol's website for one year. In addition, a telephonic replay will be available at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 9, 2018 through 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 16, 2018. To access the replay, please dial (855) 859-2056. International callers should dial 00-1-(404) 537-3406. The pass code will be 8857956.
Use of Non-GAAP Measures
Management believes that certain financial measures not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") are useful measures of operations. The company defines Adjusted EBITDA as unaudited net income (loss) attributed to Pacific Ethanol before interest expense, provision (benefit) for income taxes, asset impairments, purchase accounting adjustments, fair value adjustments, and depreciation and amortization expense. A table is provided at the end of this release that provides a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to its most directly comparable GAAP measure. Management provides this non-GAAP measure so that investors will have the same financial information that management uses, which may assist investors in properly assessing the company's performance on a period-over-period basis. Adjusted EBITDA is not a measure of financial performance under GAAP, and should not be considered as an alternative to net income (loss) or any other measure of performance under GAAP, or to cash flows from operating, investing or financing activities as an indicator of cash flows or as a measure of liquidity. Adjusted EBITDA has limitations as an analytical tool and you should not consider this measure in isolation or as a substitute for analysis of the company's results as reported under GAAP.
About Pacific Ethanol, Inc.
Pacific Ethanol, Inc. (PEIX) is a leading producer and marketer of low-carbon renewable fuels and high-quality alcohol products in the United States. Pacific Ethanol owns and operates nine production facilities, four in the Western states of California, Oregon and Idaho, and five in the Midwestern states of Illinois and Nebraska. The plants have a combined production capacity of 605 million gallons per year, produce over one million tons per year of ethanol co-products – on a dry matter basis – such as wet and dry distillers grains, wet and dry corn gluten feed, condensed distillers solubles, corn gluten meal, corn germ, corn oil, distillers yeast and CO2. Pacific Ethanol markets and distributes fuel-grade ethanol, high-quality alcohol products and co-products domestically and internationally. Pacific Ethanol’s subsidiary, Kinergy Marketing LLC, markets all ethanol and alcohol products for Pacific Ethanol’s plants as well as for third parties, approaching one billion gallons of ethanol marketed annually based on historical volumes. Pacific Ethanol’s subsidiary, Pacific Ag. Products LLC, markets wet and dry distillers grains. For more information please visit www.pacificethanol.com.
Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
Statements and information contained in this communication that refer to or include the Pacific Ethanol’s estimated or anticipated future results or other non-historical expressions of fact are forward-looking statements that reflect Pacific Ethanol’s current perspective of existing trends and information as of the date of the communication. Forward looking statements generally will be accompanied by words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “plan,” “could,” “should,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “outlook,” “guidance,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “will,” “possible,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” or other similar words, phrases or expressions. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, market conditions, including the supply of and domestic and international demand for ethanol and co-products; and Pacific Ethanol’s plans, objectives, expectations and intentions. It is important to note that Pacific Ethanol’s plans, objectives, expectations and intentions are not predictions of actual performance. Actual results may differ materially from Pacific Ethanol’s current expectations depending upon a number of factors affecting Pacific Ethanol’s business. These factors include, among others, adverse economic and market conditions, including for ethanol and its co-products and high-quality alcohols; export conditions and international demand for ethanol and co-products; fluctuations in the price of and demand for oil and gasoline; raw material costs, including ethanol production input costs; and changes in governmental regulations and policies. These factors also include, among others, the inherent uncertainty associated with financial and other projections; the anticipated size of the markets and continued demand for Pacific Ethanol’s products; the impact of competitive products and pricing; the risks and uncertainties normally incident to the ethanol production and marketing industries; changes in generally accepted accounting principles; successful compliance with governmental regulations applicable to Pacific Ethanol’s facilities, products and/or businesses; changes in laws and regulations; the loss of key senior management or staff; and other events, factors and risks previously and from time to time disclosed in Pacific Ethanol’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission including, specifically, those factors set forth in the “Risk Factors” section contained in Pacific Ethanol’s Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2018.
PACIFIC ETHANOL, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(unaudited, in thousands, except per share data)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2018 2017
Net sales $ 400,027 $ 386,340
Cost of goods sold 396,665 392,113
Gross profit (loss) 3,362 (5,773 )
Selling, general and administrative expenses 9,315 5,450
Loss from operations (5,953 ) (11,223 )
Fair value adjustments — 455
Interest expense (4,505 ) (2,637 )
Other income (expense), net 398 (80 )
Loss before benefit for income taxes (10,060 ) (13,485 )
Benefit for income taxes 563 —
Consolidated net loss (9,497 ) (13,485 )
Net loss attributed to noncontrolling interests 1,656 849
Net loss attributed to Pacific Ethanol, Inc. $ (7,841 ) $ (12,636 )
Preferred stock dividends $ (312 ) $ (312 )
Net loss available to common stockholders $ (8,153 ) $ (12,948 )
Net loss per share, basic and diluted $ (0.19 ) $ (0.31 )
Weighted-average shares outstanding, basic and diluted 42,912 42,375
PACIFIC ETHANOL, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(unaudited, in thousands, except par value)
ASSETS March 31,
2018 December 31,
2017
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $ 57,380 $ 49,489
Accounts receivable, net 74,217 80,344
Inventories 70,262 61,550
Prepaid inventory 3,609 3,281
Derivative instruments 2,981 998
Other current assets 6,082 7,584
Total current assets 214,531 203,246
Property and equipment, net 502,545 508,352
Other Assets:
Intangible assets 2,678 2,678
Other assets 4,725 6,020
Total other assets 7,403 8,698
Total Assets $ 724,479 $ 720,296
PACIFIC ETHANOL, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (CONTINUED)
(unaudited, in thousands, except par value)
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY March 31,
2018 December 31,
2017
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable – trade $ 44,671 $ 39,738
Accrued liabilities 24,255 21,673
Current portion – capital leases 380 592
Current portion – long-term debt 16,500 20,000
Derivative instruments 3,094 2,307
Other current liabilities 6,955 6,396
Total current liabilities 95,855 90,706
Long-term debt, net of current portion 228,625 221,091
Capital leases, net of current portion 112 123
Other liabilities 25,261 24,676
Total Liabilities 349,853 336,596
Stockholders’ Equity:
Pacific Ethanol, Inc. Stockholders’ Equity:
Preferred stock, $0.001 par value; 10,000 shares authorized;
Series A: no shares issued and outstanding as of
March 31, 2018, and December 31, 2017
Series B: 927 shares issued and outstanding as of
March 31, 2018, and December 31, 2017 1 1
Common stock, $0.001 par value; 300,000 shares authorized;
43,954 and 43,985 shares issued and outstanding as of
March 31, 2018, and December 31, 2017, respectively 44 44
Non-voting common stock, $0.001 par value; 3,553 shares
authorized; 1 share issued and outstanding as of
March 31, 2018, and December 31, 2017 __ __
Additional paid-in capital 927,825 927,090
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (2,234 ) (2,234)
Accumulated deficit (576,615 ) (568,462)
Total Pacific Ethanol, Inc. Stockholders’ Equity 349,021 356,439
Noncontrolling interests 25,605 27,261
Total Stockholders’ Equity 374,626 383,700
Total Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity $ 724,479 $ 720,296
Reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to Net Loss
Three Months Ended
March 31,
(in thousands) (unaudited) 2018 2017
Net loss attributed to Pacific Ethanol, Inc. $ (7,841) $ (12,636)
Adjustments:
Interest expense* 4,404 2,614
Benefit for income taxes (563) —
Fair value adjustments — (455)
Depreciation and amortization expense* 9,654 8,607
Total adjustments 13,495 10,766
Adjusted EBITDA $ 5,654 $ (1,870)
________________
* Adjusted for noncontrolling interests.
Commodity Price Performance
Three Months Ended
March 31,
(unaudited) 2018 2017
Production gallons sold (in millions) 140.8 115.0
Third party gallons sold (in millions) 91.9 111.2
Total gallons sold (in millions) 232.7 226.2
Total gallons produced (in millions) 142.1 117.9
Production capacity utilization 94% 92%
Average ethanol sales price per gallon $ 1.57 $ 1.62
Average CBOT ethanol price per gallon $ 1.42 $ 1.52
Corn cost – CBOT equivalent $ 3.57 $ 3.64
Average basis $ 0.27 $ 0.29
Delivered corn cost $ 3.84 $ 3.93
Total co-product tons sold (in thousands) 798.0 685.5
Co-product return % (1) 37.1% 34.9%
________________
(1) Co-product revenue as a percentage of delivered cost of corn.
With PEIX it always is a surprise. Also is the reaction to it. I often doubt the estimates. I think they are just not accurate enough. I've never seen them beat both estimates I think. It was mostly one. Then PPS often goes down, and up again within one or two days. It offers buying opportunities however.
IMO mexus can produce gold, and they have a path toward production. So IMO POG matters. It isn't me who started this discussion, but some seem to find it relative to say that the POG does't matter to Mexus because they haven't produced gold. And they bring in the price of tea, saying it is just as important to Mexus as the POG.
If you want to ask people to bring more relative information to this board, it would be wise to address that question to move on to them.
Like I said before: "So if I run a tea company, who has just started. And I’m planning to sell tea within two months. And all of a sudden the tea price drops to a level that makes it hard to make money on tea, it doesn’t matter?" Yes it does matter, so does the POG matter to a junior miner.
Junior gold miners are typically very sensitive to the price of gold. If the price of gold suddenly drops, it may no longer be financially feasible to operate.
Read more: What criteria classify a company as a junior gold miner? | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040815/what-criteria-classify-company-junior-gold-miner.asp#ixzz5Eow3UO6o
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
So your pleading that POG matter to every other mining, but it doesn't matter to Mexus. And your whole plead is based on your opinion about Mexus being a hobby miner far from success.
I think that by putting such a statement in a signature, it could save a lot of typing, because with that any other discussion is irrelative.
On the other hand, if one would consider to share useful thoughts, it's better to stick with real arguments that aren't a disclosure for every time, one isn't able to much sense, and threatening to lose a discussion based on facts.
LOL yes she is!
And what does the cost per ounce have to do with the POG? The production costs are the same, regardless of the POG. The profit is what changes.
The CEO has stated that gold can be produced at Santa Elena for $450/oz. He has also said that gold can be produced at Ures for the amazing cost of $150/oz. Not sure what oujia board or magic eight ball gave him those numbers, but smart miners like PT just "know" these things, apparently.
So, the POG falling or rising a few percent means very little.
Edit: I did say below the POG went up since the Santa Elena price was named. But it didn't It went down, but it is moving up again. It doesn't matter however, the result is still the same. If it would go down further, it would mean less profitable production, and if it moves up more, it would mean a bigger profit.
This was the post before the edit:
You might be right about MarMar....I think I' maybe did read it wrong in a summary of a PR in Google on my phone. It might have been missing some sentences. I'm not able to find it back.
But let's get back to the original claim on this board:
The price of tea in China is up 1.3%...what does that have to do with Mexus you might ask? It means nothing to Mexus just like POG.
By the way, it was as I believe marmar who made the $150/oz claim.
Mexus did the $450/oz claim. And since mexus did so POG went up 10%
So let’s say I earn 3 times what I need. But I have people who have invested in me to help me do so. So I need to share my profit.
And the value of their investment rises... it doesn’t matter????
Nope, would even be better with a higher POG
“The price of tea in China is up 1.3%...what does that have to do with Mexus you might ask? It means nothing to Mexus just like POG. “
So if I run a tea company, who has just started. And I’m planning to sell tea within two months. And all of a sudden the tea price drops to a level that makes it hard to make money on tea, it doesn’t matter?
Nope, but KK married her
the skunk is right on his back LOL
Don’t push your luck :-P
It seems like you're better of in Europe buying US stocks. Sell American, buy European. Crazy policy
probably at the earliest in 2019. But I wouldn't be surprised if it takes longer. Until then, we can not really declare this stock dead. It's in a coma.... but we know nothing more.
When they got into the agreement with marmar they filed after 20 day’s.
I looked back into the posts, but I wasn’t able to find any complaints about that.
Be patient, at least until GERS ends the lawsuit.
I wasn’t referring to you harry but to KK
You guys put a lot of energy in a no brainer. All due to one braniac.
Are you posting the same under different named now Russ? :-P lol
Okay, let' start here:
believe the VAT hasn’t arrived because Mexus is a mining company scam stock sold over the OTC.
All the necessary equipment has arrived at the mine site including the large VAT gold recovery tank
Ssshhhtttt!!! Everything is a secret! When a ceo visits the bathroom and let’s you know, it’s inside information!
Since this discussion is of very little importance, let me add something to it.
IMHO this is wat really matters to the value of a stock (sorry if I'm being too reasonable):
If a stock is on bid for 10 cents a share for a 100.000 shares, and on ask for 15 cents a share and a 100.000 shares are offered, one could say, the value is the value which somebody is willing to pay for it. So in this case 10 cents. and you can only put that price on 100.000 shares for sure.
The first one to meet this condition, is the one who gets this value.
Now, somebody else comes along, and buys 50.000 shares @ 15 cents. So the latest known price is 15 cents. Now there are 50.000 shares offered @ 15 cents. And still 100.000 on ask @ 10 cents.
The one with the shares offered could say, the value is 15 cents. But at this time, there is no one willing to buy them at the price.
Now what is the real value? The real value is where somebody could sell the shares for at that moment.
So that's still just 10 cents, even though the seller has already sold half @ 15 cents.
If he really wants to sell, he could sell 50.000 shares @ 10 cents, which will put HIS average selling price at 12.5 cents. This is the value he could get, if he does so, and beats somebody else, this doesn't mean the value is 12.5 cents to everybody. It's just for him, because he wat the one able to sell half @ 15 cents and half @ 10 cents.
He also can wait, until somebody else meets his asking price. There's nothing wrong with that. That way he could get more money. But it doesn't make the value of something higher. The value of something is what you can get for it, not what you want. Even if nobody is selling, because all think the bid is too low.
Now suddenly another person comes along and wants to buy 75.000 shares @ 15 cents. There are 50.000 shares on offer, so his order fills for 50.000 shares, and 25.000 shares are still on ask.
The next above this asking price is 18 cents for 200.000 shares.
You can now say the value of this stock @ 15 cents. But....only for 25.000 shares. If someone wants to sell 50.000 shares at this price, he will not be able to.
The nice thing is, such an ask and offer, might make others believe that this is the real value at this time. So they also might put in offers and bids around these levels. Which helps to support the value.
This is something that works best when a stock is traded a lot.
With penny stocks that are so little traded like this one, with only a relative small amount of shares on ask and bid, it doesn't really work that way. That's also why the spread is so large. If you really want to put a value on your shares, it's the value one is willing to pay for your amount of shares at that time, not what they did pay to the one who just got paid.
GERS has been played and played into their strategy
“why did we not proceed directly with the appeal?”
IMO it probably was advised to take a shot by CC and/or the court.
They just needed to check it off of the list. That way they could also show the court that they were really willing to find another way out.
They knew it would cost time and money and probably lead to no result, but if they didn’t give it a try, it could jeopardize a positive outcome, because they might seem more like they are only after quick money, and leave everything over to the judges.
Thanks, I was expecting a time frame like that. It might take even longer then 2019 IMO.
It would surprise me if CC was expecting a quick result. I think they are experienced enough to know that this might drag on for a while.
Could it be that the reason that GERS needed the dilution to generate money was the legal expenses and the loan they had?
From the 2015 10K:
Revenues for the year ended December 31, 2015, were $9.5 million as compared to $12.8 million generated during the year ended December 31, 2014. The decrease in revenue during 2015 as compared to 2014 was due to a decrease in event-driven engineering services revenue, the amount of corn oil produced and royalties paid by our licensees, and commodity price fluctuation. Revenue in future periods will remain subject to variance in connection with a number of factors, including the amount of corn oil that our licensees produce, the market price for that corn oil, the extent to which we collect reasonable royalties, and the degree to which we provide event-driven systems integration services to our licensees involving the design, construction, integration and modification of licensed technologies.
Costs of sales for the year ended December 31, 2015, decreased to $3.2 million from about $4.6 million during 2014. We generated $6.3 million in gross profit for the year ended December 31, 2015, as compared to $8.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. We expect to achieve increased economies of scale with respect to our costs of sales and gross profit as all of our existing and new licensees commence and achieve full production and as we execute new licenses for our corn oil extraction and other technologies.
Operating expenses for the years ended December 31, 2015, and December 31, 2014, were about $6.5 million and $7.4 million, respectively. Operating expenses during 2015 included $5.0 million in professional fees, of which about $3.0 million was accrued and not paid during the year, as well as about $359,000 in research and development costs. By contrast, operating expenses during 2014 included about $3.2 million in professional fees, of which about $1.0 million was accrued and not paid during the year, as well as about $729,000 in research and development costs. Our legal costs during 2015 were incurred primarily in connection with our ongoing litigation for patent infringement. We produced about $298,000 in operating loss during 2015 as compared to about $768,000 operating income in 2014.
Other income for the year ended December 31, 2015, was about $16.2 million, while other income for the year ended December 31, 2014 was $180,000. We realized a debt extinguishment gain of about $22.1 million in 2015 that was offset by about $5.2 million in interest expense and about $1 million in indemnification expenses. These amounts compared to a debt extinguishment gain of about $2.7 million that was offset by about $2.2 million in interest expense and $745,000 in other expense during 2014. Net income for the years ended December 31, 2015, and December 31, 2014, was about $15.8 million and about $941,000, respectively
What fake news and who? Did btzo make up fake news?
Did you have the chance to read it yet?
Could you maybe provide a very brief summary?
I’m not able to read it now (I will tomorrow) but my curiousity is killing me (as well as the cat)
Those are your words, I was more thinking it’s for investors that want to invest in a company with a higher risk and reward, not too conservative and that isn’t on everybody’s radar yet. It might take more balls to invest in such a company. But I’m glad you added the brains to that requirement too. I must be blessed with both.
“you are saying that GORO didn't break out their expenses, so why should Mexus?”
Yes, that’s my point.
“if I were an investor and was frustrated with the 8.2 oz gold production and the current share price, I'd probably want to know where $870K went”
Good thing then that you don’t need to worry about that. Not every investor is cut out for mexus.