I can't reply to private messages. I only have the basic membership Sorry.
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.
I've now uploaded a spreadsheet with the Q2 numbers to date on the Investor Village PEIX board. I also updated the alternative calculation to adjust for the percentage of corn oil production vs total ethanol production through Q1 and up to this point in Q2. It does reduce the alternative calculations slightly.
I also pointed out some interesting observations about the current and past Kansas City prices for milo.
If someone is aware of a site that would make it easy to upload and provide links to PDF files, I will gladly make those files available here. Unfortunately, due to the increased number of data columns, providing a copy here as an image is no longer a viable alternative.
The current going rate for corn oil in the Midwest and Eastern states is around 25.50/cwt or $0.255/lb (I don't have a number for California, but it doesn't appear to vary too much nation-wide).
On average, a reasonable allowance is 1.2 lbs of corn oil produced per bushel of corn processed for ethanol. An argument can certainly be made for a higher corn oil value/bushel. Someone more familiar with the PEIX extraction technology might be able to provide a more accurate number.
2.8 gallons of ethanol are produced per bushel
Madera nameplate capacity is 40M gal/yr, so
(1.2 lbs/2.8 gal/lb) x 40M gals x $0.255 = $4.4M (rounded) in additional gross revenue per year, or 1.1M/quarter (based on current prices).
Boardman is due to be producing by the end of Q2, so come July that additional gross revenue stream doubles.
Perhaps, but when the PC's were discussing an Alberta royalty review a while back, the Canadian oil industry underperformed it's US counterpart by some 15% until the PC's finally backed off. I don't expect this reaction to be a whole lot different.
Canadian based companies with overseas interests could very well be beneficiaries here as investors who want to safeguard their investment capital, but don't want to abandon oil at a time prices are looking to eventually regain the $70 threshold, look for alternatives. Buying US currency/companies at this juncture is not a strong bet as the CDN dollar will climb with oil, eroding any US gains. On the other hand, companies like AOI offer a very viable alternative.
I'm certainly waiting on Q1 earnings. I will be a buyer on any substantial pullback. I suspect they won't exactly have a positive impact on the share price. Q2 numbers are certainly not up to the Q4 numbers at this point, but a definite improvement over Q1 so far. If anything, it also looks like Q2 is shaping up to be a good quarter for Kinergy (in line with Q4, and definitely better than Q1 to date). The USDA numbers for Nebraska and Illinois are an improvement over Q1 to date as well.
Using the California cash corn price, I had the following number for PEIX for last week. Following that are the USDA numbers for Nebraska and Illinois:
PEIX $0.609
Nebraska $0.754
Illinois $0.90
Keep in mind as well that the USDA plant numbers don't include anything fr corn oil. You can probably add an additional $0.10 - $0.11 for corn oil production. There is an allowance in the PEIX formula for corn oil as wells as WDGS.
The Alberta Provincial election. Could it have a positive impact on AOI?
There's a pretty big sell-off of Canadian oil companies with interests in Alberta, following yesterday's Provincial election. Some of those CDN $$$ might well be looking for safer havens in companies with good upside potential. Those who investigate AOI might well see how seriously undervalued it is right now and decide it's a good place to relocate some of the funds fleeing the domestic oil scene.
For those who might be unfamiliar, here's a couple news stories. The threat of royalty increases is hitting the Alberta oil sector pretty hard today ...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/alberta-oilpatch-begins-new-world-under-ndp-government-1.3063268
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/how-albertas-ndp-election-victory-could-spark-a-stock-selloff-and-stall-investment-in-the-oil-patch?__lsa=56bf-187a
$70 oil on the way?
Interesting interview on Bloomberg
Here's a working link. How nice, Google offering to buy patents straight from the owner, no lawyers, no middlemen representing your interests.
Google Patent Thievery
They did
Press Release
I notice the date of the sales were on the 6th. Income tax related?
Thanks for passing that on. Great news IMO.
Reverse splits carry a stigma attached to the companies who resort to them as a stop-gap measure to avoid delisting. Clearly when that brush is broadly applied to every situation where there's an RS, it can lead to great buying opportunities. If they run this down based on that stigma, I'll be waiting with a catcher's mitt.
2.4 Share Consolidation
Shareholders will be asked at the Meeting to approve a special resolution to consolidate all of the Corporation’s issued and outstanding Common Shares on the basis of a ratio within the range of one post-consolidation Common Share for every five pre-consolidation Common Shares to one post-consolidation Common Share for every 25 pre-consolidation Common Shares (the “Consolidation”), with the ratio to be selected and implemented by the Corporation’s board of directors, if at all, at any time prior to December 31, 2015. The number of pre-Consolidation shares in the ratio must be a whole number of Common Shares. The Consolidation remains subject to receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals, including approval of the Toronto Stock Exchange (the “TSX” or the “Exchange”).
If the Board decides to implement the Consolidation, upon completion of the Consolidation the number of Common Shares issued and outstanding will be reduced from approximately 110,311,428 Common Shares as of April 3, 2015 to between approximately 22,062,286 and 4,412,457 shares, depending on the ratio selected by the Board. The following table sets out the approximate percentage reduction in the number of outstanding Common Shares and the approximate number of Common Shares that would be outstanding as a result of a Consolidation at the ratios indicated:
(table omitted, you can see it in the original filing)
On April 2, 2015, the closing price of the Common Shares on the TSX was $1.36. Management believes that it is possible that the Common Shares trade at prices that may impact the desirability of purchasing the Common Shares. Accordingly, management believes that a reduction in the number of outstanding Common Shares, warrants and stock options will increase the Corporation’s flexibility and competitiveness in the market place and may make the Corporation’s securities more attractive to potential investors. Management believes that a higher trading price for the Common Shares would be beneficial to the Corporation and its shareholders as it will enable the Corporation to attract interest from a broader range of institutional investors in Canada, the United States and elsewhere.
The Board believes that shareholder approval of the range of potential Consolidation ratios (rather than a single Consolidation ratio) provides the Board with maximum flexibility to achieve the desired results of the Consolidation. If the Share Consolidation Resolution (as defined below) is approved, the Consolidation will be implemented, if at all, only upon a determination by the Board that the Consolidation is in the best interests of the Corporation and the shareholders at that time. In connection with any determination to implement a Consolidation, the Board will set the timing for such a Consolidation and select the specific ratio from within the range of ratios set forth in the Share Consolidation Resolution. The Board’s selection of the specific ratio will be based primarily on the price level of the Common Shares at that time and the expected stability of that price level. In addition, the Board may consider factors such as:
(a) the prevailing trading volume of the Common Shares and the anticipated impact of the Consolidation on the trading market for the Common Shares;
(b) the outlook for the trading price of the Common Shares;
(c) threshold prices of brokerage houses or institutional investors that could impact their ability to invest or recommend investments in the Common Shares;
(d) the greatest overall reduction in the Corporation’s administrative costs; and
(e) prevailing general market and economic conditions.
No further action on the part of shareholders will be required in order for the Board to implement the Consolidation. If the Board does not implement the Consolidation before December 31, 2015, the authority granted by the Share Consolidation Resolution to implement the Consolidation on these terms will lapse and be of no further force or effect. The Share Consolidation Resolution will also authorize the Board to elect not to proceed with, and abandon, the Consolidation at any time if it determines, in its sole discretion, to do so. The Board would exercise this right if it determined that the Consolidation was no longer in the best interests of the Corporation and its shareholders.
No further approval or action by or prior notice to shareholders will be required in order for the Board to abandon the Consolidation.
SEDAR link (hopefully it works
I got to work on that patience part a bit :D
Lewis was scheduled as part of this panel, now removed.
1:50-2:30 pm
Paradigm Shift: T Cell Therapies
Arie Belldegrun, Kite Pharma; André Choulika, Cellectis; Tom Farrell, Bellicum Pharmaceuticals; Henry Ji, Sorrento Therapeutics
Moderator: Biren Amin, Jefferies
Cancer Advance Boston
Jeffries doesn't have a site up for their conference, but you can check postings on other boards. It's also all over twitter.
They cancelled their Cancer Advance Boston presentation today as well as the Jefferies Immuno-Oncology Summit presentation tomorrow.
Rumor is it's because they went into a silent period prior to big news coming. The reasoning is that they didn't want to be in a spot where they have to refuse to answer questions.
Thanks for posting this. I took the liberty of reposting it on a few other boards.
Perhaps it's noteworthy enough to be sticky'd by a mod?
John McCamant on ZIOP. States NCI signing could easily be worth more than the Merck S deal. Discussion starts at the 6 minute mark
Link
No, it means the opposite. Before there was a restriction on the merger that PEIX had to be above $10 for it to go through. Now they removed it.
At a time when analysts and journalists are using verbage like "glut" and "overflowing" there's a few facts people should be aware of. This next link is my favorite. As it came out on March 3rd it's perhaps a little dated, but still pretty much captures the current situation:
U.S. crude oil storage capacity utilization now up to 60%
Meanwhile this discussion about inventory level vs capacity at Cushing might cause a few to wonder why words like "overflowing" even appear in news and analyst coverage:
Crude oil storage at Cushing, but not storage capacity utilization rate, at record level
If you looked at that second link, you now know that Cushing was a lot closer to maxing out capacity in 2011 than it is now ...
Which all leads to the only question that really matters: What's the set-up? Why are gasoline prices climbing at the same time the newspapers and analyst firms are screaming "glut" from the rooftops? We all know it's nothing less than a set-up . . . and probably has a lot more to do with why we're all left wondering why we're no longer paying the low gasoline prices that came with the initial onslaught of "The Glut" only a few months ago.
8-K filed - amendment to the Aventine deal
link to full filing
Item 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of Merger
On March 31, 2015, Pacific Ethanol, Inc. (the “Company”), AVR Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“Merger Sub”), and Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc. (“Aventine”) entered into Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Amendment”) amending the terms of the previously disclosed Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 30, 2014 (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among the Company, Merger Sub and Aventine. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Aventine, with Aventine continuing as the surviving corporation of the merger and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the “Merger”). The Amendment (i) specifies that the Company’s stockholders’ meeting shall occur as promptly as practicable after the declaration of effectiveness of the joint proxy statement/prospectus, rather than within 45 days after the declaration of effectiveness of the joint proxy statement/prospectus, (ii) removes the requirement that the VWAP per share (as defined in the Merger Agreement) of the Company’s common stock, as reported on NASDAQ for the 20 trading days immediately preceding the closing, equals or exceeds $10.00, (iii) provides that the Company will identify individuals to be party to employment agreements and provide such individuals the principal terms of employment, in each case, as promptly as practicable but no later than on or prior to May 1, 2015, rather than 30 days after the execution of the Merger Agreement and (iv) specifies that the condition in Section 7.2(k) of the Merger Agreement shall be deemed to have been satisfied without any further action if the Company does not provided notice to Aventine within 20 days after receipt of the current and valid Phase I environmental site assessment for Aventine’s facility in Pekin, Illinois, that the cost of remediation of Aventine’s facility in Pekin, Illinois would in the reasonable determination of the Company be expected to exceed $3,300,000 in the aggregate.
Other than expressly modified pursuant to the Amendment, the Merger Agreement remains in full force and effect. The foregoing description of the Amendment is not a complete description of all of the parties’ rights and obligations under the Merger Agreement or the Amendment. The above description is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by reference to the Merger Agreement, which was filed as Exhibit 2.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) by the Company on December 31, 2014, and the Amendment, which is filed as Exhibit 2.1 hereto and is incorporated herein by reference.
I didn't buy calls, I sold them. I was quite willing to take the premium against the odds that the stock would hit $20 before the April expiry. Options can't generate revenue and either expire worthless or at least at a value less than originally paid to the seller the vast majority of the time. Shares can produce revenue, and had the share price actually peaked to $20 I would of quite happily accepted the $20/share on top of the premium collected on the call options ;)
The Amended Exclusive Channel Partner Agreement
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1107421/000119312515117648/d902541dex102.htm
and License Agreement
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1107421/000119312515117648/d902541dex101.htm
There's never any guarantees in the investment world, and it's always unnerving to experience a drop. Thankfully I'm still well into the green. And sometimes in need of being reminded that nothing but nothing goes up in a straight line.
ZIOP went up too far too fast and a correction was certainly due. The hype about a biotech bubble certainly magnified the situation. However, I look back at the orginal reaction to the MD Anderson announcement, and then consider current events. I personally suspect that there is some serious buying going on even now. No doubt they are being stealthful and attempting to load up without creating any price pressure. This back-to-back news the past two days is too significant for knowledgeable investors to ignore.
A lot has been added to the arsenal, and I seriously doubt Kirk is done yet. Just the fact that he's played down the last two developments on the ZIOP side tells me there's another piece coming. Not to mention the fact that the very fact that it's been played down is completely contrary to the short "pump and dump" thesis. It that was the plan, they'd be shrieking from the rooftops the past two days, as opposed to the low key PR approach they've taken.
Everything Kirk had done is following the path he's laid out. Those who have followed what he openly stated, knows what still lies ahead. What I'm really looking forward to is the next CC, even if I have to wait for the Q1 release. I suspect the number of trials going forward has increased as the direct result of these past two collaborations . . .
All the above is obviously my opinion, however, I'm confident in the due diligence I've put in. Now, if someone will just buy some May $20 calls for the same outrageous prices they paid me the past couple months :D
Trust all's well with you ;)
Before anyone panics over the prospectus supplement, this is the final required step in the transfer of shares to MD Anderson. They are no longer a restricted private placement. MD Anderson is free to sell if and when they choose. End of story.
Don't be misled by any shrimp. The more important news of the day is the collaboration announcement. Go figure on Kirk to enlist no one less than the Father of CAR-T. And remember, the Intrexon/Ziopharm agreement means all agreements relating to cancer by default involve ZIOP :D
Intrexon Signs Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) for RheoSwitch(R) Controlled IL-12 Cancer Therapies Using T cell Receptors (TCR) Derived from Peripheral Blood
Last update: 01/04/2015 4:05:07 pm
GERMANTOWN, Md., April 1, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Intrexon Corporation (NYSE: XON), a leader in synthetic biology, today announced that Intrexon has signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health, for the development of adoptive T cell therapies utilizing the RheoSwitch Therapeutic System(R) (RTS(R) ) platform for the treatment of solid tumor malignancies. The principal goal of the CRADA is to develop and evaluate improved adoptive cell transfer-based immunotherapies (ACT) using NCI proprietary methods for the identification of autologous peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) possessing naturally occurring anti-tumor activity combined with Intrexon's RTS(R) gene switch for introducing spatially and temporally controlled interleukin-12 (IL-12) expression.
RTS(R) technology enables transcriptional regulation of a wide variety of therapeutic genes upon dosing of an oral activator ligand veledimex, including in vivo modulation of IL-12 gene expression with a broad dynamic range. As the first gene switch employed in the clinic to enable dose-dependent cytokine expression and offer the ability to administer or withdraw veledimex for continued treatment cycles, the RheoSwitch(R) platform provides the opportunity to tailor solutions for patient-specific therapeutic effects. Intrexon will genetically modify PBL using vectors that encode IL-12 under RTS(R) inducible control. Lead anti-tumor ACT/PBL/IL-12 cell therapy candidates will then be clinically evaluated by NCI in patients with metastatic cancer.
Under the CRADA, Steven A. Rosenberg, M.D., Ph.D., Chief of the Surgery Branch in the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI, will be the Principal Investigator for the study, and Gregory Frost, Ph.D., Senior Vice President and Head of Intrexon's Health Sector, will serve as co-investigator.
"Dr. Rosenberg and his colleagues at the NCI Surgery Branch have extensive experience in the clinical translation of tumor-targeting peripheral blood products for cancer treatment," said Dr. Frost. "Together with our molecular and cell engineering capabilities, we believe the research programs under this CRADA have the potential to accelerate development of targeted and controllable adoptive therapies for patients suffering with advanced stage malignancies."
About Intrexon Corporation
Intrexon Corporation (NYSE: XON) is a leader in synthetic biology focused on collaborating with companies in Health, Food, Energy, Environment, and Consumer sectors to create biologically-based products that improve the quality of life and the health of the planet. Through the Company's proprietary UltraVector(R) platform and integrated technology suite, Intrexon provides its partners with industrial-scale design and development of complex biological systems delivering unprecedented control, quality, function, and performance of living cells. We call our synthetic biology approach Better DNA(R), and we invite you to discover more at www.dna.com.
Trademarks
Intrexon, UltraVector, RheoSwitch, RheoSwitch Therapeutic System, RTS, and Better DNA are trademarks of Intrexon and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.
Safe Harbor Statement
Some of the statements made in this press release are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based upon our current expectations and projections about future events and generally relate to our plans, objectives and expectations for the development of our business. Although management believes that the plans and objectives reflected in or suggested by these forward-looking statements are reasonable, all forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties and actual future results may be materially different from the plans, objectives and expectations expressed in this press release.
For more information contact:
Intrexon Corporation contacts:
Corporate Contact:
Marie Rossi, Ph.D.
Senior Manager, Technical Communications
Tel: +1 (301) 556-9850
publicrelations@intrexon.com
Investor Contact:
Christopher Basta
Vice President, Investor Relations
Tel: +1 (561) 410-7052
Investors@intrexon.com
Logo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20130919/NY83283LOGO
To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/intrexon-signs-cooperative-research-and-development-agreement-crada-with-the-national-cancer-institute-nci-for-rheoswitch-controlled-il-12-cancer-therapies-using-t-cell-receptors-tcr-derived-from-peripheral-blood-300059695.html
SOURCE Intrexon Corporation
/Web site: http://www.dna.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
April 01, 2015 16:05 ET (20:05 GMT)
Hi Mortenm. Sorry for the slow reply, however I was waiting for the last numbers for Q1 to come in before posting.
First, just a reminder. The production margins presented are NOT profit margins. They only reflect the difference in value between the cost of corn and the resulting ethanol and co-products.
I've provided a number of alternatives to using the standard PEIX formula. If all you want is that number, refer to the column labelled "CBOT Near."
I suspect that the actual margin will be somewhat higher than the estimate produced by applying the standard PEIX formula. With the low prices of late I suspect the ratio of return for co-products vs the price of corn might be skewed towards the low side. I tried something with this quarter and used some assumed values for WDGS and corn oil in order to attempt to estimate a value for co-products, as opposed to relying on the 30% guidance that PEIX provides. The results of those calculations are at the bottom of the table. I think they need to be taken with a grain of salt . . .
I've never been able to locate a California market price for wet distillers grains, although a weekly price for DDGS is provided by the USDA. I was able to track the price of wet vs. dry distillers grains for Nebraska. That allowed me to come up with a ratio, which I then applied to the California DDGS price. However, I think this is subject to substantial error, in part because I haven't tracked the Nebraska differential long enough to feel any sense of reliability. I also dug up the data for Q4 to see if it correlated, however it resulted in an unrealistic value for the quarter. I'm including here here more for the sake of feedback than anything else. I do believe the overall value will be higher than the 30% PEIX standard value, but I don't expect it to be as high as the alternative values reflect.
I tracked the data for Nebraska and Illinois. While it doesn't apply to this quarter, I felt it would be helpful to gain an understanding of what the USDA standard will compare to actual reported profits. I also tracked the price of milo in California, Nebraska (the quoted price is within 20 miles of the Aventine plant) and Kansas (as the price there at least a one point was so low as to raise the question of whether it would be viable to purchase).
Hopefully the methodologies for coming up with the different alternative estimates for the production margin are clear.
As for the remainder of the data, I continue to refine what I track in the hopes of developing more accurate correlations to the actual margins reported by PEIX. I continue to add/drop different data as the value becomes apparent (or not). If you find value in it, great. If not, you're free to ignore it.
Unfortunately I don't know how to link a PDF directly to this post. Fortunately, I am able to make it available through the PEIX board on IV, as I have file storage capacity there. To access the file you'll have to look at my post over there.
EDIT: Price holding so far here north of the border ($1.23). Here's a link to the Canadian listing. Unfortunately it's on a 15 minute delay (the prices I'm quoting are live though).
CTH.TO
I'm using the edit button to update so I don't use up all my posts (not a subscribed member).
Volume so far 236.9K
Av daily volume 165.5K
Toronto Exchange is currently $1.21 up 3.42%
Looks to me more like management rewarding themselves
Here's a laugh
Taken from page 47 of the "Fair Operation" section of ZTE's 2013 Corporate Social Responsibility Report
ZTE Corporation requires its subsidiaries to strictly comply with the local corporate laws, labor laws, investment laws, technology export control laws, customs trade laws, intellectual property laws, and other regulatory requirements, and establish the value concept and brand image of compliance. Continuous compliance management not only safeguards the investment interests of the headquarters, but also expresses concern for the interests and needs of local investment partners, business partners, employees, unions, governments, and market order. ZTE Corporation has made a complete set of sustainable development and management plans. Based on the risk assessment, ZTE selects the subsidiaries with big compliance risks for special compliance rectification every year, to ensure the appropriate governance structure and compliance business conduct.
Seems to me that ZTE has a lot of rectifying ahead of them.
There's lots more, like this little gem of an introductory paragraph at the beginning of the "Fair Operation" section on page 45 . . .
Observing business ethics and abiding by the local laws and regulations are the basic principles for ZTE’s global compliance operations. All ZTE management personnel and employees must strictly comply with the local laws and regulations, industry practices, and standards of ethics. ZTE has zero tolerance towards any illegal act and business ethics violation.
Is the U.S. Running Out of Crude Oil Storage? No, despite the popular narrative that we keep hearing, the U.S is not running out of crude oil storage. Yet there are those who are predicting that oil prices are going to fall to $20 or $30 a barrel, pointing to the crude oil storage numbers and suggesting that we are near maximum capacity and therefore a price collapse is imminent . . .
link to the rest of the article . . . interesting read (and certainly not the first time I've heard this)
But it doesn't end there. The author of that piece states the capacity at Cushing as 70M barrels. Turns out even that number appears to be less than the actual capacity. In Sept 2014 the EIA stated it's actually just shy of 85M barrels. Kind of makes you wonder when even the EIA is involved in the hype about running out of storage space, doesn't it?
Net Storage Capacity by PADD
The author of that piece states the capacity at Cushing as 70M barrels. Turns out even that number appears to be less than the actual capacity. In Sept 2014 the EIA stated it's actuallt just shy of 85M barrels. Kind of makes you wonder when even the EIA is involved in the hype about running out of storage space, doesn't it?
source
Is the U.S. Running Out of Crude Oil Storage? No, despite the popular narrative that we keep hearing, the U.S is not running out of crude oil storage. Yet there are those who are predicting that oil prices are going to fall to $20 or $30 a barrel, pointing to the crude oil storage numbers and suggesting that we are near maximum capacity and therefore a price collapse is imminent . . .
link to the rest of the article . . . interesting read (and certainly not the first time I've heard this)
Can a broker lend shares from a cash account? Yes, but only with your explicit permission. It's not uncommon for holders of shares in cash accounts to get a call from their broker asking if they want to lend the shares of a particular stock, and offer an interest payment. That's not the case with a margin account, because the account holder signs away the right to the broker to lend the shares when the account is opened (along with the right to any compensation).
Naw, they're just for informed stockholders who don't want their shares lent out to work against them.
This is the standard blank cheque signed over and given to Schwab by margin account holders. It's From the Schwab One application agreement:
Section 11: Loan Consent. You agree that property held in your Margin Account, now or in the future, may be borrowed (either separately or together with the property of others) by us (acting as principal) or by others. You agree that Schwab may receive and retain certain benefits (including, but not limited to, interest on collateral posted for such loans) to which you will not be entitled. You acknowledge that, in certain circumstances, such borrowings could limit your ability to exercise voting rights or receive dividends, in whole or in part, with respect to the property lent. You understand that for property that is lent by Schwab, the dividends paid on such property will go to the borrower. No compensation or other reimbursements will be due to you in connection with such borrowings. However, if you are allocated a substitute payment in lieu of dividends, you understand that such a payment may not be entitled to the same tax treatment as may have been applied to the receipt of a dividend. You agree that Schwab is not required to compensate you for any differential tax treatment between dividends and payments in lieu of dividends. Schwab may allocate payments in lieu of dividends by any mechanism permitted by law, including by using a lottery allocation system
I have the São Paulo price for ethanol at $1.623 US as of Friday's close. It's fallen 40 cents in the past 4 weeks. A large part of that is the value of the Brasilian Real, which has fallen from $0.3532 to $0.3080 over that time. Ethanol over that same time period fell from 1512.00 Real/cubic metre to 1392.50.