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.
If the KDS is so great and the AGES engineers are so smart, why didn't they build a demo plant to produce electricity? I'm sure HQ would have been glad to purchase power from them to support the "green" power effort and I would bet Canadian grants, tax relief, etc. would be available. Hey, this process pays for itself in a year, right? I bet the FASC longs would have lined up to donate money for them to burn too.
I think it's because it ain't that great. I wonder how many potential customers traveled to Atlas to see the KDS in action?
Probably zero. Same at AP, I bet.
terry: Convertible CD's are also the kiss of death to OTC investors, IMO. They are set up so the "lender" can't lose, if the interest isn't paid, then shares are issued at huge discounts and are dumped. But I was referring to conventional bank loans when I said "CAN'T", not convertible debentures.
TRCPA: Take a deep breath and look at your old posts just prior to the previous 10Q Commandments being delivered from the mount, do you really think the market will care?
TRCPA: I took a deep breath, finished my coffee, and I still agree with me! LOL! FASC will not borrow money while they can continue to sell shares via reverse split and/or increasing authorized. They had many years to see if the KDS could fly, and it doesn't, so no bank loans. Switchgrass, crabgrass, fescue, or bermuda, it's all a pipe dream brought on by smoking grass. Even if is a commercially viable alternative energy source, the KDS isn't, IMO.
TRCPA: I think this has been discussed before. In the real world, banks do not loan money to companies with no assets to back the loans. Diluting OTC companies are always pumped as being "debt free", well duh, it's because they CAN'T borrow. The longs have bought shares to provide salary and expense money to run the company hoping for a return based on perceived potential. Basically you have loaned money to the company with no strings attached, just hoping for a market return. If FASC receives orders for a 100 KDS's, they "MAY" be able to obtain purchase order backed loans, but that's about it, IMO, and they could be "expensive" loans.
"Backed by future revenue flow" is not a valid loan qualifier except with loan sharks and they usually don't like public exposure, LOL! Now if you have some past revenue flow history, then future revenue flow may be considered.
So they sold enought the previous two months to last two more months. Anyone figured their monthly share burn rate? 140 million in 5(?) years = 2.33 million per month on average and probably more like 6 million at these pps levels. That seems too high.
OT: I run Scottrade on one browser so I always have the streamer open and can go to Fidelity on another browser to make any trades in those accounts. My Fidelity accounts were set up years ago and I hate to go to the trouble of switching.
jonesieatl: $5.30 X $5.50, on a slow day, pinksheets.com can give you bid/ask even though delayed. Fidelity too cheap to offer pink sheet quotes? Shoot, there's some major foreign companies listed on pink sheets because they don't want to spend the big bucks to meet US SEC accounting methods for the big boards, I think Nestles is one. Fidelity sucks for the small investors/traders, IMO.
OT: Gd2Aussie3, what do you think about TYC options? May be some good acquistions by them this year, I'm looking at Jan 06 calls and maybe a hedge put if they give any more "bad" news.
Use board below if OT's not allowed here on other stocks.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=1781
Waitedg: Have you been watching GLW? Take a look at ATEA if it drops below $8, very low float and earnings keep going up. Has been low daily volume but I'm holding waiting for the day traders to find it! LOL!
"Best price" MM??? Ask was at $4.75 for a while yesterday and I placed an order through Fidelity at $4.75, they routed to Knight and it wasn't filled. I thought the ask was a mistake since the last sale was at $4.80, but I bet another MM was at $4.75 and Knight didn't meet it. I finally changed to $4.80, but not quick enough, it spiked. I guess if Fidelity doesn't even have the bid/ask info, how can they route it for the "best" price. No big deal, just passing on the info.
Looked to me like the buying was larger blocks than the sells yesterday, saw at least one at 5000 shares. Anyone have time/trade info?
Waitedg: Just buy the damn stock and quit screwing around!
Train is halfway out of the station and picking up speed! LOL!
I screwed around too today and didn't get any! Let's see what it does tomorrow. Volume is picking up.
I tried that with Fidelity, but no bid/ask, just last price.
By: Janesfwh
05 May 2005, 11:13 AM EDT
Msg. 187842 of 187842
Jump to msg. #
News.....
BIG NEWS AHEAD FOR FASC! What we have been waiting for! Have a nice day. James
Looks like the IR boys are getting the word out. $5.25 X $5.50
Now we're flying! LOL!
Waitedg: Pretty sure you have to open an account, $500 mininum? I tried to buy at $4.75 today when the ask was $4.75 (but last sale was $4.80). Didn't fill, so changed to $4.80 and they raised it to $5.00 ask as my order went in! Basterds! LOL!
CMGI, buy now, sell over $2 when Cramer recommends it again!!!!
$4.50 X $4.70, last $4.60, 4370 shares traded.
I have $4.50 X $4.60 bid/ask on Scottrade Streamer right now.
Nice move yesterday, I guess with the sector. Check out the Nanotech index:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5ENNZ&t=1d
Waitedg: Scottrade Streamer gives bid and ask, I imagine Ameritrade streamer does too. The Pink Sheet site also gives best bid/ask at the top of the "quote", but it is delayed.
Good luck if you pick BIPH, it's a true pump and dump with 1-3 fluffy PR's a day, IMO, but if you know that, I guess it may be good for a momo play. I'm waiting for their next filing to see how much their OS has gone up, the fluffies don't seem as effective anymore.
Don't know how much capital you have, but maybe look at several purchases to get a good average price. Since I never hit the low initially, my first purchase is always small! LOL!
http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/quote.jsp?symbol=tdyh
sambeaux: Good answer! Why not! LOL!
sambeaux: So using your logic, if ALMI fails to be successful selling lots of Nanoclay, it will be the fault of the KDS?
Setonian: Well, good luck. "If" seems to have been around here for years. ))))))
Setonian: I can't find anything good about FASC as an investment right now. It's a 3 cent OTC stock with dilution used to pay the bills. That said, ANY PR could drive it to 5 cents maybe, BUT there are those here that are in HEAVY and are praying to God to at least break even. They may jam the exits on any small spike. If they get some regular business, I may take another look after the reverse split (my opinion only). GLTY.
PS: Read this quickly because it may be deleted.
Jeez, now you guys are deleting excellant investing DD, what's up wid dat!! Should it have been "OT"?
Since this started trading in March, I don't think the total volume traded since then is equal to the 2 million float. Patience is required and time to add, IMO. PPS dips are our friend!!!
LOL!
Waitedg: I doubt we'll get under $4, more investors becoming aware as they progress. Just a gut feel, 2 million shares out there so the day to day pps on low volume doesn't mean much other than a chance to buy more for those that are willing to wait for future announcements. They've been doing a good job so far, IMO.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=TDYH.PK
Looked like a 7000 share buy at 4.55 at the bell, but it disappeared. Good volume day, looked to me like the buys were larger blocks than the sells generally. I tried for a buy at $4.30 but didn't get filled.
starboy: We haven't seen a PR blitz since the research reports, so I think it's more to answer investor's questions as the company goals are met and interest grows. I'm working on getting some dry powder to buy more on dips. Low volume and big spread so limit buys in between the spread are best, IMO.
This is interesting. Does BIPH have insurance to defend their $1500(?) patents? Note the insurer checks the patents first to make sure they can be defended.
PATENT INSURANCE, IS IT WORTH IT?
© 2000, 2001, 2002 Bruce E. Burdick
Patents are the crown jewels of many companies, but they can land you in court.
They protect the technology that provides the competitive advantage that gives the company its "winning edge." They are not self-enforcing. If they are yours, you may have to enforce them to stay in business. If they are theirs, you may have to defend yourself and your business against charges of patent infringement.
Patent litigation is very, very expensive.
How Expensive?
The average cost of patent litigation through trial ranges from $500,000 to almost $2,000,000 for each side. These numbers can easily be higher for high profile cases. Patent litigators charge $200-$500 per hour, and lots of hours are required. Multimillion dollar verdicts and injunctions are the norm in successful patent infringement suits, and these suits are often “bet-the-business” gambles for one or both sides.
While corporate giants such as IBM or Microsoft can afford patent litigation without insurance, infringement litigation presents small or start-up companies with great risk of being overwhelmed by the big players. This reminds me of the saying "If you you're too small to play with the big dogs you better stay on the porch and watch." Patent insurance can turn a small dog into a big dog in a patent dogfight, and its presence may encourage the other side to stay on the porch.
Hidden Costs.
A major hidden cost is the diversion of management time. If your company's executives are attending trial, being deposed, or preparing to testify, they are not attending to other company business. You must decide if the people involved can handle both their regular tasks and the added tasks of litigation. There is also stress on management and possible adverse publicity involved in being in court over patent infringement.
Despite these costs, patent litigation is sometimes unavoidable, and patent litigation is becoming more common, particularly with high-tech businesses where patent rights can be the key to success or failure of the business. These are often
But, there is Good News (…or is it?)
The insurance industry has new policies to cover the costs of prosecuting and defending patent litigation.
Defensive Policies
These policies take effect when someone sues you for infringing THEIR patent.
These policies are also called "Patent Infringement Defense Insurance”, “Patent Liability Insurance", "Patent Infringer's Insurance" or other similar names.
Since around 1995, defensive patent infringement insurance policies have been available. They may help prevent a small company from being steamrolled by a big company with a patent. Without it the big company may use a patent infringement suit to bankrupt the small company or force it out of the market. Typically, "defensive" patent infringement policies cover both damages and defense costs within predetermined limits, although some less expensive policies cover only legal costs, but not damages.
Premiums typically run 2% - 5% of the insured amount (i.e.$20,000 to $50,000 per $1 million in coverage) with co-payments ranging from 15% to 25%.
Insurers often rate prospects in various ways, such as " industry hazard groups" previously rated by the insurer.
Insurers check how carefully applicants check for possible conflicting patents before committing to specific designs, how carefully they have handled patent matters in the past, whether the applicant has its own collection of patents to trade in negotiations and whether the applicant regularly consults patent counsel on new products.
Most policies require an opinion by outside counsel, sometimes at the expense of the insured, as to the merits of the patent infringement claim being defended against. More normal is that this opinion is up to the insurer as part of the insurer's defense against the claim, as that way the insurer can get an opinion from a patent litigator it knows to be reliable.
The policies have been common for about seven years now, so track records of coverage disputes are beginning to emerge. Some policies provide that if the insured does not agree with a settlement proposed by the insurer, payment of defense costs is suspended until resolution of the case. That situation could force the insured company to sue the insurer to get paid and certainly puts the insured and insurer at odds with each other.
We think your money is generally better spent trying to identify relevant patents of others and avoid infringement by designing around those patents. We think your money is also better spent in research to develop patentable inventions and in patenting your own inventions. Alternatively, we think you can normally obtain an opinion of non-infringement and defend against many patent claims without having to spend as much as for the insurance. With the advent of high-tech companies where intellectual property rights can be the entire business and where "burn rate" has gone from a side issue to a main issue, however, the landscape has changed and patent risks can be significant enough to warrant this kind of insurance. With start up companies, the risk of infringement is greater because the established companies are more likely to patents to try to nip the startup in the bud and the downside is much greater because the number of products is often so few that an adverse patent infringement judgment might shut down the entire product line. In areas like telecommunications, bio-tech and internet businesses, where there is known to be substantial patenting by the leading players and where it is known that the leaders are litigious, this insurance often makes sense.
Our recommendation normally is NOT to spend for this type of insurance unless: (a) you are entering a new business area where you are small and the big players have patents, or (b) you have other reasons to believe a patent suit against you is pretty likely, or (c) you have so few products that a serious patent claim against you on one of them could shut your business down, or (d) you have customers you must agree to protect against infringement claims and you do not have the resources to do so without insurance.
Offensive Patent Infringement Insurance
These policies take effect when someone else infringes YOUR patent.
Policies described as "Offensive Patent Insurance," "Patent Pursuit Insurance", "Patent Enforcement Insurance," or "Infringement Abatement Insurance" insurance are available for companies wanting to buy the ability to engage in litigation to protect and enforce their patent rights. Enforcement policies allow companies to use the insurance company's cash to go after infringers.
The most common current policies cover 75% of the enforcement costs up to a fixed amount, with $500,000 being a fairly standard maximum coverage. Annual premiums are typically $3,000 to $4,000 for $500,000 in coverage.
Before issuing offensive patent insurance, the insurance company will require information about:
previous attempts to enforce the patent;
active licensing programs;
the availability of the inventor to testify at trial (and whether the inventor will be a friendly witness);
patent claims, in detail, in the field of the potential insured's product;
knowledge of any existing infringement (e.g., warning letters sent or received) and the difficulty of detecting infringement;
competitors in the relevant markets;
the sales and market share of the top five companies in the market;
the known patents in the field and who owns them;
the availability of technically qualified people to try to design around patents; and
the total capital necessary for a company to market a competing product.
Before a policy will issue, an opinion letter from a qualified intellectual property attorney opining as to the validity of the patents in question must usually be issued. This is a lucrative field for some patent attorneys, as these opinions can be quite expensive if thoroughly researched and well written. Some insurance companies have in-house patent attorneys to do this work while others have established close affiliation relationships (the cost typically ranges from $3,000 to $15,000 per opinion with $500 to $5,000 for updates). This cost of these opinions is normally the responsibility of the potential insured even if no policy is ultimately issued. For example, our understanding is that Lloyd's charges $25,000 for the patent review process prior to issuing policies.
There may be some crucial exclusions, that affect your litigation expenses, such as defense of opposing claims (for example, the normal counterclaims of invalidity, any antitrust claims, cross-claims for infringement, breach of contract claims, etc.) and liability for judgments or damages for opposing claims (such as a for infringement of one of defendant's patents)
Upon finding an instance of infringement, the insured policy owner must promptly notify the insurance carrier in writing and give the carrier a favorable written opinion from an independent attorney finding infringement to be present (again at the insured's cost). If the infringement suit succeeds, the insurer under some policies gets part of the recovery, most often 50%, until the insurer’s costs are reimbursed. If the insured is unsuccessful at the trial level, the policyholder may have to pay for appeal if the insurance company elects to pursue an appeal.
Advantages of patent enforcement insurance include:
1. Insurance deters infringement because it gives financial power to more aggressively protect a patent.
2. Insurance reduces pressure on the patent holder to settle because of mounting legal expenses.
3. Insured patents may encourage investors by reducing their risk.
4. Insured patents are easier to license because prospective licensees feel more secure in them and less eager to risk avoiding them.
Disadvantages of patent enforcement insurance include:
1. Insurance premiums are usually based on the number of intellectual patents covered, not the likelihood of enforcement litigation.
2. Policyholders must periodically review coverage and update the list of patents covered or chance a newly issued patent not being covered.
3. Disputes often arise between the insurer and the policy owner as the insurer tries to avoid paying, and this can make insurance increase litigation costs rather than decrease them.
4. Insurance may actually encourage policy owners to litigate where negotiations and settlement may make better business sense.
5. The money might sometimes be better spent on developing new products.
Our normal recommendation is that Offensive Patent Insurance makes financial sense for small to medium size businesses with a key patented product or service that is likely to draw competition, or where patent royalties on a key product are the main source of revenue for the company, but we think Patent Enforcement Insurance makes little sense for large companies.
Some warnings:
Before getting into the patent insurance market, either from the offensive or defensive end, make a careful review needs. Study your patent portfolio's value and the odds you are infringing or being infringed. Review how much insurance coverage exists under other policies. Think whether you have the cash available to defend or prosecute patent infringement litigation. If you have lots of cash it makes sense to "self-insure" and spend the premium money on marketing and R&D.
Even if you never have patent litigation, this careful review will help you find ways to better use your patents and better avoid infringement.
Doubloon: Good points, I just assume everyone here knows those, but they are major factors. I don't know of any O&G companies that even come close.
Waitedg: Looks about right, although I would expect a higher P/E for a new company with expected good growth.
Gd2Aussie3: When the market agrees with me it is right.
LOL!
Waitedg: BTW, in case you are interested, here's a good link for oil and gas prices, etc.:
http://www.futuresource.com/markets/market.jsp?id=energy
Waitedg: EBITDA is estimated to be $20M in 2006 and $46M in 2007. Probably flat or negative in 2005, IMO. I think the best comparison is to GDP. My guess would be $0.75 to $1.00 net earnings per share starting in 2006 with steady growth thereafter.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GDP
cyberbubba: No, to be honest, I missed the momo play when techisbest recommended BIPH at about 75 cents. I have been following it though, and don't think it's a future winner. Was a great winner for some if they got in low and took profits. The OTC hype stocks usually lose their fizzle when the hype doesn't produce revenues. JMO, hope I'm wrong for the longs. Let's see what the filing tells us.
cyberbubba: Why are YOU here? Talk about a waste of bandwidth, especially at the Raging Baloney. I doubt you are even aware of OS and dilution and what they are. Why do you attack rather than address the issue?
techisbest: No guesses yet on the OS increase? I figure they've spent maybe $1 million for the pump and dump PR's, interviews and trips. I wonder if they will delay the filing a few weeks to get some more dump time?