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.
You can referring to this article as if it was the holy grail. It is an opinion of a nutty right wing person. The same arguments could be said for the bulls in a different light. Let's stick with the facts. The company is worth $0 until proven otherwise. So granting it a $10mln optional value would be generous at this stage. Once the orders flow in as you expect, perhaps it could grow into a $100mln valuation, but not before.
I don't see how you can interpret it any other way.
Yes, it does.
The TransCanada Equipment Lease with Option to Purchase (“Lease”, see Note 4) was terminated, effective October 15, 2014. Under terms of the Lease, all equipment is to be returned to the Company by TransCanada, at TransCanada’s expense.
What more is there to know than the statement?
Wishful thinking is never wise in investments. Just because you haven't received your invitation to go to Hogwarts, doesn't mean that you won't receive it soon.
If you just read what I wrote, then you'll see that I didn't question the existence of the AOT in the video. I said that nobody can see or hear from the video that the machine is active. Plus the filings say that TC will return it.
For those, we are still in limbo against all available evidence that Transcanada is no longer interested, watch out for potential information by the company on the Investor Day today.
The company has to proof itself by now that it has any intrinsic value, so far that value is zero! So, a $95mln market cap is incredibly high. So maybe the stock has to go back to a $10mln market cap, and from there it could appreciate if (a big question mark) once the orders flow in. Hope is no strategy.
TC had already decided to send the AOT back way before the vote, so it is a mute argument. The Keystone vote is highly irrelevant for both bulls and bears.
You can turn the argument around. I have a really hard time judging from 321 videos that the AOT is actually functional. It is there, but is it running? I can't hear a thing, aside from the wind. The only factual thing we know is that Transcanada will send the AOT back to STWA.
The latest 8-k shows again that the company continues to remain afloat by issuing even more unregistered securities, keeping the diluting machine alive.
That would a dangerous day for capitalism. Then every semi-crook could buy a corporate shell, license patents from an university and through private placement and marketing cheat people out of funds.
They have done one unique thing that most startups were unable to do.
STWA was able to burn through $96mln over the course of 16 years without having proven that it can bring a product or service successfully to market. Most startups generate revenues much sooner, but are still unprofitable and will collapse because their funding gets cut off.
There is nothing impressive about the company. If I would hire a team of the most successfull oil engineers and would give them a $100mln budget with more stringent SG&A control and more focus on R&D, I would bet that you come up with a much better result than STWA has been able to produce.
Hope is not a strategy, but that is exactly what the bulls are counting on.
I guess some people have too wild an imagination. Working for Transcanada doesn't make sense, even when you come up with conspiracy theories. I have never lied about my positions in the stock, what I think of the company.
I wanted to short more, but I am waiting until this rebound is completed. Besides, I am constraint by the availability of shares to short at any given day. The intention is to increase the short position at least by a factor 10 (would still only be $85k), as I strongly believe that the intrinsic value is $0.
It is not that the CEO has such a stellar banking background, but was merely working for a small community bank in Santa Barbara. Perhaps he is able to attract enough fools to fund new investment rounds, but it is a tricky game, almost akin to a ponzi scheme.
I have never said this before. The only way for this company to have some intrinsic value would be to use its overvalued stock as a currency to buy cash flow producing companies and roll these up. That way, the stock will be worth something per share, but real companies would be crazy to swap their ownership in a valuable business for ZERO shares.
3. Term and Lease Payment.
3.1 The term of this Lease of Equipment shall be for a period of four (4) months (the "Initial Term"), commencing on the date of successful completion of the Equipment's direct current power supply is successfully energized by Lessor following installation pre-startup safety review (PSSR) by Kinder Morgan, which shall be completed by Kinder Morgan no later than thirty (30) days following Lessor's delivery and Kinder Morgan's acceptance of the Equipment in accordance with Section 5.1 below. On sixty (60) days' written notice prior to the expiration of the Initial Term, Kinder Morgan shall have an option to extend the Lease for a minimum of twelve (12) and a maximum of eighty-four (84) additional months ("Extended Term"), subject to Kinder Morgan's exercise, if at all, of its option to purchase the Equipment in accordance with Section 12, below.
2
3.2 During the Initial Term and Extended Term, if any, Kinder Morgan shall pay to the Lessor, a monthly lease fee in U.S. Dollars in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) ("Monthly Lease Payment"). In the event the Equipment is removed from service at its initial location and re-installed to a new location during the Initial Term of the Lease, the Monthly Lease Payment during the Initial Term of the Lease shall be reduced to $5,000 per month ("Standby Lease Payment") until the Equipment is placed back in service at its new location, at which time the Monthly Lease Payments shall again be Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000). If the Equipment is in service for a partial month, the Monthly Lease Payment and Standby Lease Payment shall be calculated and paid on a pro rata per day basis.
3.3 Kinder Morgan shall pay each Monthly Lease Payment to the Lessor within 15 days of invoicing by Lessor during the Initial Term and Extended Term, if any, of this Lease.
3.4 Kinder Morgan shall pay each Monthly Lease Payment to a bank account designated by the Lessor.
3.5 Kinder Morgan shall be responsible for payment of all licensing and registration fees in respect of the Equipment.
They have to endure it during the initial lease. After the commencement of the initial lease, they can cancel it.
At least, you seem to be one of the more reasonable bulls.
I can see how you can be mistaken to read into the language of the 10-Q that the AOT works. It is written a bit misleadingly, leaving the bulls wondering and pondering.
The Kinder Morgan lease agreement was signed at a time after the Transcanada lease was signed. KM might have been more receptive to testing it, because of that lease. Since the TC turned out to be a negative, I am not sure whether KM is as excited about testing the AOT as before, but they're bound by the lease.
Newfield exploration is a cash flow neutral agreement, as it won't lead to any revenue streams, it is merely meant to give the joule heating technique more credit.
Why wouldn't the company run out of money? What other sources of capital does he have? There are no revenue streams he can tap in. The only revenue that the company can hope for are orders from Kinder Morgan at this stage. in the meanwhile, the company continues to dilute and burn through cash, until it can't.
You have to put the the entire investment into the perspective of their total capital expenditures budget, it is still highly irrelevant for them. Sure, they still would like it to work, otherwise they have wasted time and money, but it is not the end of the world, but it is for STWA.
Yes, they may well have awaited the Keystone vote, but that doesn't prevent them from giving them a general update on the business. It is a standard practice for publicly traded companies to at least publish a press release, especially now that they boast about being uplisted.
The TransCanada Equipment Lease with Option to Purchase (“Lease”, see Note 4) was terminated, effective October 15, 2014. Under terms of the Lease, all equipment is to be returned to the Company by TransCanada, at TransCanada’s expense.
An honest question. Would you sell your shares if (hypothetically!!!) no orders would emerge from TC or KM?
And for those who still think that everything is a-ok with the TC lease and that management is not worrying, why hasn't the company released a press release regarding the latest quarter like it did at the end of Q2.
Instead of bashing the bears, why haven't the bulls questioned the wasteful spending by the firm. It would be interesting to have a full outline of all SG&A items over the course of the company's history. I bet there a lot of expenses that would make me blush.
The board consists of people with no experience in the oil industry, aside from Don Dickson. They have used this company as a piggy bank to enrich themselves. To keep the ponzi scheme afloat, they need to redirect investors attention from failed products to potential gold mines.
And Kinder Morgan probably was willing to do a test lease on a smaller AOT device, as Don Dickson (board member, and former KM employee) had some contacts within the firm and based on the fact that TC had signed a test lease. Now that TC will return the AOT, it is likely that KM (if they are even aware of the situation, as this entire lease is not vital to them) already regrets signing this lease, and will probably cancel the lease at the earliest convenience.
Again, the burden of proof is on the side of the bulls. I can't disproof a negative, if the involved companies don't publicly mention that STWA's products are worthless.
This or former management has never been able to bring any of their products to commercial viability, so why now? What gives you the confidence that they wouldn't lose their right on the patents when they run out of cash?
You have to put things in perspective. The trial lease of both TC and KM is relatively short and cost them a small call option to test a technology. It is trivial to them, as they might be involved with countless other oil service companies to test different sorts of technologies. TC and KM also never made a big deal of this in terms of news releases or 8-k, only STWA did, because it is their only life line. Transcanada is out, which clearly creates serious doubt about the commercial viability of the AOT.
If Halliburton or other oil companies know the technology well, as some of you claimed, why wouldn't they have pulled the plug? Because they first want to await commercial viability? If they are unsure, what gives you the confidence that orders will come in. What do you know what they don't? No third party institute has resolutely claimed that oil viscocity can be achieved in a commercial viability fashion. Even Rand never claimed that STWA's technology was sufficient. If power supply was the issue for the TC lease, then they had sufficient time to adjust that, if TC was seriously interested in continued testing.
That is a bogus argument, because if they had their eyes on STWA, they would have pulled the trigger to get in at a low valuation, if they thought that the technology was revolutionary and that STWA could be worth much more. If you do some second level thinking and agree that the AOT is so much better than other competiting technologies at reducing oil viscocity, why wouldn't other competitors buy this company or buy the patents, since it could disrupt their core businesses. The answer is simple, it simply isn't the oil viscocity reduction solution that STWA claims it is.
Nobody addresses one of the most essential things. How is a team of 9 employees with no R&D budget (and most of the employees are management with no engineering background) capable of coming up with revolutionary technologies, with the Joule heating technique as their latest installment, while none of the large guys with smarter people and bigger budgets can't think of it.
Neither the Keystone Pipeline vote nor the HAL-BHI deal will impact ZERO's intrinsic value. The vote won't matter because it doesn't change AOT commercial viability. Aside from the fact that nobody in the industry took STWA seriously, otherwise they would have purchased the company by now or have taken a large stake.
GPCM should not be a publicly traded company, as it has a crumbling revenue model and an incoherent insurance commission strategy, which is unlikely to halt the decline in revenues. The endless dilution that has taken this company to a $25mln market capitalisation is unsustainable. There is no scenario imagineable where the website could be profitable - even assuming revenues back to 2012 levels and serious cost custs - and therefore continued dilution will be necessary. Unfortunately, this is a terminal short. The website itself might be a nice addition for a few larger internet holding companies, but only for a fraction of the current market cap.
Not really, the stock just bounced from oversold conditions. There is no evidence whatsoever for any order.
No. I am not getting desperate. I have said right after the release of the 10-q that I believe it is a terminal short, as the commercial viability of the AOT is finally disproven. Nothing has changed afterwards. There has been no evidence of any sort that anything has happened, only sharp moves up and down in the stock.
Good call. Good opportunity too to lighten your position. I have reinitiated a short position again this morning. Hopefully, the stock will be driven up a lot further.
Hey Sodd, there is no AOT inventory as of the end of Q3, according to the balance sheet in the 10-Q.
Of course, most do. But that was not the question. If a shareholder wants to investigate and can find some information, why shouldn't he?
It is not a bad idea. Besides, how can it jeopardize the NDA if a shareholder asks. Besides, if the other party breaches the NDA, it shouldn't matter that much to STWA, unless they have something to hide.
Halliburton would be much better without the merger, as margins at the former BJ Services at Baker Hughes have been subpar, so hopefully they would sell those assets of. The combined entity though would be better capable of combating Slumberger internationally.
Then why did you ask?
I have a master prime brokerage account for my fund at JPM and Interactive Brokers; and primarily Interactive Brokers for plain vanilla stuff for my personal and corporate account.
Regardless of whether you are a bull or bear, it is almost unbelievable that everytime a small untalented team with no R&D budget can come up with the most revolutionary results, results so far apart from what competitors were able to generate in the past. It should ring all alarm bells for outlandish behaviour.
Not true. I have said in the past that if material orders would flow in (especially in the range you mentioned), I was wrong about the commercial viability assumption of the AOT and would gladly accept defeat. I am professional enough to take losses when the facts or thesis changes. My original bear thesis is still intact, and if anything the events post 10-q give me more confidence that I will vindicate in the long run. I said yesterday already that I covered my short in the 30s and that the stock was oversold. Market makers and fortune hunters have pushed the stock up again, and probably will do it even higher, but that gives me a chance to come and establish a solid short position, instead of the 35000 shares I was short first.
Large quantities, I don't think so. The stock is up on 45k shares (which is not even a dollar value of $22k). The stock was oversold, and that is why I covered my position in the 30s. Will I reinitiate my short position at higher prices? Yes, I will. I hope that the price goes up to 0.60, because last time I had a minor short position, now that the cat risk is taken away, I might initiate a much larger short position.
If this is the best Gregg can do, you better hide. This announcement is nothing new, and shares a partnership that involves no cash flow, but provides the company with a potential smoke screen to divert shareholders from failed AOT tests, similar to the Elektra situation a few years ago.