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.
Help me out, is a sleeve job anything like a ...... oh never mind
I have read the article. IMO they are making the correct moves to bring this to the market. I do wish that the March date for projections had not been released because it gives opportunities for problems. It will be show and tell.
I hope this is not a violation of the TOU here but I have posted most of the links to some research on this site
http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=9738&clear=1&pt=m
Oceanex..Freight Volume and revenue numbers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These figures are from Oceanex report
2006 RESULTS
They may be small in relation to the shipping business
but they are not small potatoes
Volume for the year was 86,407 TEUs, 0.3% more than 2005 volume of
86,135 TEUs(1). Volume to Newfoundland was up 0.7%: Montreal, with two
additional sailings, increased 1.5% whereas Halifax, with eight fewer
sailings, was down 0.7%. Return traffic was lower on both services for an
overall reduction of 1.3%. Motor vehicle shipments from Halifax increased by
842 units or 4.5% to 19,585 units compared to 2005.
Revenue for the year was $124.3 million, an increase of $5.8 million or
4.9% compared to 2005 revenue of $118.5 million. The increase was attributable
to higher freight rates, inclusive of fuel surcharge, and an increased
proportion of higher revenue Montreal volume. Revenue for 2006 included an
insurance recovery of $0.5 million while the Cabot was in dry dock; in 2005,
$1.2 million was included in revenue for a similar insurance recovery related
to the Sanderling.
Operating expenses were $99.2 million, $2.4 million or 2.4% higher than
2005. Higher vessel costs were due to operating a four-vessel fleet for eleven
months in 2006 compared to seven months in 2005, and increased insurance and
fuel costs. Higher vessel operating costs were, however, partially offset by
the reversal of a $1.4 million dry dock provision due to the sale of the
Cicero and an insurance recovery of $0.75 million for repairs that had been
included in the 2005 additional Cabot dry dock costs of $4 million. Increased
equipment maintenance, container refurbishment and additional inland costs
incurred for the shipment of time sensitive cargo by road during dry dock
periods also contributed to the increase in operating expenses.
Selling and administrative expenses were $8.1 million, $0.8 million or
10.3% higher than 2005. The increase was due to higher professional fees,
corporate expenses and severance costs due to employment terminations.
Amortization of capital assets and deferred financing fees was $6.9 million
compared to $6.0 million in 2005; the increase is mostly due to the
acquisition of the Avalon in May 2005 and the amortization of deferred
financing fees related to the vessel loan.
http://www.oceanex.com/en/about.html
The only possible reason for a share holder downgrading a stock that he is currently holding would be to influence others to sell so that he could buy more. I am a share holder and I will freely admit it am attempting to spread information about this company to others so that they will form an interest and maybe buy in.
I don't believe that anyone on the internet is trying to help me out or save me from myself.
If I truely believed that this was a scam or I had made a bad investment choise I would quietly sell and move on.
Why would I try to destroy my own position ?
Ok you are willing to debate or you are not.
Have another beer and enjoy your evening
Tell the truth is that your car ?
Why don't you sell your shares if you are so convinced this is a scam. I can understand if you are in the red but I don't understand your complete reversal in attitude.
I don't recall reading that they donated their one container for this program but perhaps you have other information available. It is simply a fact that real world data will be necessary to get this off the ground. If that requires the company providing a container to a shipper so be it.
This sort of commitment requires a large outlay of capitol and customers have to be convinced. These units are exposed to extreme environments and shippers are responsible for the frieght until it gets to its destination. I know you will choose to attack my posts or disagree with my opinions because you seem to have taken on a negative slant. Of course that is your right and people need to see both sides of the coin. However it is my opinion that this is definately the correct, required next step. I guess I am just seeing this from a different viewpoint than you.
Please don't take this personal, I simply don't agree with you
There are different stress factors related to the different methods of transportation.
Exposure to seawater, Exposure to road salt, lateral stresses involved with transportation on a chassis. Verticle lifting involved with loading and unloading onto and off of various modalities. No company in the world is going to purchase a product like this without real world environmental data.
This company also uses road trailers. This could be another benefit as far as providing a different criteria for data comparison
If you look at the investor tab on their website you can find yearly data for teu movement and revenue.
http://www.oceanex.com/en/about.html
They are a small company when compared to the really big players.
Don't they have to start somewere?
I'm sorry if my post offended you.
I was only attempting to express my intepretation of the wording of the press release.
by mentioning railcars and chassis they are only talking about the whole chain of intermodal transportation.
Containers are transported in three ways
On a ship across water
On a railcar
On a chassis on the road
They are determining the reaction to all three methods
You have to kick the tires before you buy the vehicle
Promises, Promises
Better than nothing
Dear Shareholder,
As part of our on-going commitment to keeping you informed, we are pleased to provide you with this "CFRI Investor Up-Date" email. Today's up-date: Progress Report.
PROGRESS REPORT
First of all, we would like to take this opportunity to thank all of our Shareholders who have taken the time to send us emails and call our Investor Relations line. We appreciate the support.
Although it was our intention to have certain press releases issued in February, we have been delayed slightly. At this time, it is important to note that the business activities of the company are progressing extremely well and there will be much to report in the coming weeks in connection with customer orders, new products and financial projections.
The EKO-FLOR product has been very well received and interest in the product has been higher than expected at this early stage. To that end, we are pleased to report that Conforce was featured in a very positive article in the January 2007 edition of the prestigious industry trade journal World Cargo News under the headline "Floors - the container's Achilles Heel" - "Enter the EKO-FLOR". More positive media attention is expected in the near future and up-dates to Shareholders will be provided on the subject.
To better accommodate the company's growth and increase in personnel, Conforce will be moving to its new office facilities in mid March. It is indeed a busy time at Conforce as we continue to move forward towards our goal of changing the way containers are made, worldwide.
visit the Conforce website now
We thank you for your continued support and expect that 2007 will be an extremely exciting year for Conforce.
Sincerely,
Investor Relations
Conforce International, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
email: news@conforce1.com
web: http://www.conforce1.com
Concerning OTCBB filings
This is what you would look for
http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/form10-sb.pdf
This would be a place to look
http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml
Concerning patent search try this
http://www.google.com/advanced_patent_search
There are other sources.
http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html
I wonder if you knew the new VP has his name on a patent application
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FP...
You bring up some points that should be examined. I hate to be always waving their flag however there has been no dilution. Most companys would have issued shares from the a/s to fund the development and marketing costs that the have experienced. If I am reading the 3q report correctly they have paid for these things by loans made by " Directors, Officers,Shareholders, The loans are without interest or terms of repayment".
Dosen't this mean that the principals of this company are using their own money to fund this expansion. If I am misinterpreting this show me where I am going wrong.
It was naive to pre release a schedule of prs when you cannot factor in all possibilities.
As far as I know they have not failed yet. They really are not in the business to publish prs, maybe their busy.
I don't think that they would have been able to aquire the manufactoring contracts if patents were an issue
If a person is in the red on this and needs to place blame I might suggest finding the nearest mirror and point away
At least you have the market cap correct this time
I sure wish I could know what this one said
A container storage and repair facility in order to be competitive must be in a reasonable proximity to it's customer base. Railway intermodal Yards, port facilities, warehousing and distibution centers. The nature of the transportation business sometimes causes these locations to change, even very large rail hubs are often leased for this reason. Something as simple as the relocation of an expressway off ramp could dramatically reduce accessability and increase drayage costs to a customer. A piece of property that ends up being in the middle of nowhere is of very little value to such a business.
Leasing this type of property only makes good business sense. The storage of containers really only requires flat stable ground, and perhaps a slight degree of protection from wind. Repairs could be affected with mobile units while shop facilities are relocated. I understand why they might want to own administrative offices because the same factors do not apply, and it would give you a larger control over costs.
The leasing of property has been discussed here.
I just thought I would post this information as a matter of clarification.
From the CFRI disclosure
https://www.otcstockinfo.com/repository/659764/659764_FR7.pdf
The Administration Offices are located at 18 Fairground Lane, Vaughan, Ontario.
The administration offices are 1,528 per month. The Fairground Property is owned by the Principal of the company and is leased to the company for the cost of the mortgage and the property taxes.
Many companies lease equipment or facilities from themselves or subsidiaries. The disclosure does not mention the terminal ownership and neither location can be considered to be equity belonging to the company. Improvement to the leased property are the responsibility of the company and are funded by monies from operating cash flow
I am expecting/planning that they will execute their business
plan and I think that is what the current pps is reflecting.
You have often spoke of your experience in the market. I have 30 plus years in the intermodal business and am absolutely aware of what they do for a living. I know for a fact that the terminal business in no way reflects the current pps and it is based on the future that the market anticipates for Eko-Flor and any other possible products. I have worked as a youth in exactly the type of facility that they operate. I was a container inspector at a repair facility in Chicago, Marine Container Services. I have figures obtained from my contacts at Evergreen Container at the Burlington Northern facility in Elwood Il. for floor replacement costs and am aware that the ability to provide a constant price for material alone may seem very attractive to a manufacturing concern. Their repair shops are unable to even provide customers with anything less than an estimate because of the fluctuating material costs. I would love to know where the company stands with contracts and am sure that they will provide that information as soon as they deem themselves able to do so.
I did have to correct my original post as a visual impairment caused a mistype of my figures.
It was not a intentional attempt to mistate facts and I corrected it as soon as I was aware of it
MARKET CAP
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketcapitalization.asp
According to 3q report
COMMON SHARES AMOUNT Balance as at Dec. 31, 2006 120,001,000
Price per share as of 2/16/07 .53
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=cfri.pk&x=46&y=17
120,001,000 X .53 = 63,600,530
Please correct me if I am doing this wrong
The negativity expressed here is no more proven than the optimisim referenced here about the "other" board.
Claims of information received from telephone calls to I/R do not carry any more weight because they are expressing a negative opinion, and should not be concidered to be fact unless you have made those calls yourself. Every trader has his own agenda. Some are more willing to attempt to manipulate others than most, or have access to a broader forum. You should have done your homework before you even thought of buying. I can only think of one reason for unproven negativity toward a stock that someone has openly stated that he owns. I think I understand the game, and I know the risks. We shall all see if Conforce is successful, the odds are long. It really is every man for himself, although I have attempted to share verifiable information that I have found, because I think it is in my best interest.
That was the press page for the 2007 intermodal show.
They seem to be siteing Conforce as an example to the industry.
I also did a google search and came across some of the links you talked about in an earlier post
Intermodal 2007
http://www.intermodal-events.com/press
Of the many new products and services showcased at Intermodal 2006, there were a few particularly outstanding launches. After 32 years of specialising in the repair and sale of containers, Conforce International announced it was also to become a supplier of container products. The Canadian company launched a revolutionary new container flooring system, EKO-FLOR, designed to replace the traditional wood floor in shipping containers. Certified by the American Bureau of Shipping just two weeks ago, EKO-FLOR attracted a great deal interest from Intermodal visitors.
I HUB has a board concerning this subject
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=6401
Here's a negative.
Marino gave the company web site as www.conforce1.com
That dosen't work
Check out Conforce web site
Link to new CEO interview
Did I hear 3 new products?
I'm sorry that link dosen't seem to work
Try this one, it takes you to another link
click the pdf file
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=16514515
The brokerages involved are named in the litagation documents
Concerning Restrictions
I recently called Scottrade concerning a restriction on another issue I was interested in (AANI) when online trading was unavailable.
They said that there is a list of companys that have exibited unusual trading activity and it is not a reflection of the company per. se
The first person I talked to told me that it was due to a problem with people hacking into accounts and using funds to buy up shares in companys that they had already owned allowing them to sell off into the rise. It sounded like bs to me but I did find this
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/compla.../comp19981.pdf
I attempted to move up the food chain to get more info and even requested a response in writing. I received an email saying that no more information was available.
Pictures look nice, Good Job
The New Vice President
I did some research on the new V.P.
He seems to be the real deal
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/ccc/se...ompleteProfile
I found his name on a US patent application as a coinventor
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...RS=20060113517
Maybe this fencing thing is one of the products they are talking about. His name is on the patent application, maybe they need him to go forward with it. I'm just guessing
These guys keep showing up together
here is a link with the name of one of the coinventors names listed with Joe DeRose.
They are all connected
http://www.cpia.ca/topics/default.php?ID=71
I seem to be finding a real chain of expertise here.
These are people that are capable of something.
The links are real, the opinions are my own
3 february: The company will up-date Shareholders with respect to the status of its EKO-FLOR “roll-out” program.
4 february: The company will announce new developments as they relate to the expansion of the terminal operations core business division.
5 february: Based on the results to-date of the “Prepare for Change, Worldwide” sales campaign and the planned Terminal Expansion, the company will issue revenue and earnings projections for 2007 & 2008.
Good bye
I really do not have any problem with this press release.
In the world where I live doing exactly what you say you will do, good or bad is all you can ask of anyone.
I must of had different expectations than you. Your posts on the other board are a bit over the top and I may be misinterpreting things but if you still have a position you would seem to be shooting yourself in the foot.
If I was really questioning things I would have seen this as an opp. to quietly unwind my position and move on.
You seem to have been playing your cards close to your vest, as is your right, however these doubts you have expressed have come across more in the form of an attack than anything else.
I'm sure that a few may have sold off in the last few days thinking that Conforce was not going to come through. If that was your case I wish you luck. You have experience in your favor. I expect another release tomorrow. Let the market be the judge
They did exactly what they said that they would do
january: The company will announce its plan with respect to a new listing for the trading of CFRI stock.
They have a business to run also. I sincerely hope they are working on sales harder than uplisting requirements
Thanks for the info
Once again they borrow money, price starts declining
Looks like maybe Scottrade did me a favor
OT Did you notice the hottie walking away under the umbrella?
This one's for you Burp
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i234/charhorse/IMG_0183.jpg
Investor Village has a new CFRI board
Question, If this is a newbie question bear with me.
Can anyone tell me what effect if any a relisting to another exchange would have on the insider held shares?
I have read many times that these shares are restricted and that accounts for the small float.
What makes them restricted if in fact they are?
Is it just a factor of them being held by company insiders?
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/restrictedstock.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/float.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/030703.asp