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 and this company say that they own NTI.....correct?
Why then does this not show up in financials? If they paid NTI license fee after license fee and they own that company, then they own that asset. That should show up....right?
Have you ever seen such a report?
The potential that the company keeps spouting doesn't even cover their current debt.
So hcti owns nti? Why is that not showing on the balance sheet?
That's an asset that we as shareholders now own. Right?
They have exclusivity when they pay the fee right?
How much cash on hand do they currently have?
You've been here much longer than IF. Not much has changed since then except the number of outstanding shares and the pps.
If the marketing and sales are so great, why not release some numbers???
With so many F500 companies in the mix for so long, you would think something would have come out of it now besides the constant speculation.
Also, see my last post about the valuation and offer your take if you have time.
Would you share your process for valuating this company?
By my account:
No product that they own
Over $20 million in debt
The revenue doesn't show up ($160k?)
Deals that are perpetually incomplete or gagged (again no revenue or hint on financials)
F500 can be teasers can be traced back how many years now?
To me the market cap is more than generous IMO.
Sure I'm bitter, but my comments were accurate. The company makes no distinction between nonisocyanate and isocyanate free.
This whole there's isocyanates in the process in all competitors is something that was invented here on this board.
Is funny that the "DD" done and shared here is so thorough, but always seems to stop short of the entire story. Then wild speculation replaces what the person didn't share.
Perfect example, after digging into the "EMU connection", why didn't anyone share the patent that Mannari and the university holds? It's in direct competition with HCTI. Instead, we get this connection is amazing and they want or tech. This is beyond ludicrous if you know how academia works, but people pick up the flag and run with it anyways.
So yeah, I'll keep posting.
So what does a company that buys HCTI out gain? A license that NTI can let expire?
The big chemical companies already have products that will very likely be compliant with any new regulations. They have teams dedicated to this.
There is no need to buy a company out that has no products of their own.
I guess you should inform the company then. They have described their product as non-isocyanate in a number of places. The EPA also claims the HCTI product is non-isocyanate. You'll also notice all of those NIPU (non-isocyanate polyurethane) and HNIPU (hybrid non-isocyanate polyurethane) references.
So do they not know the terminology that is associated with their product, or are you simply playing word games?
They're going to educate government agencies about nonisocyanate alternatives but state that they have no knowledge of a single other nonisocyanate polyurethane.
They can't do a simple google search, have no clue about their industry, or are simply lying. Since Figovsky is quite an expert in this field, I'll let you figure out which it is.
So you realize that there are nonisocyanate polyurethane alternatives already commercially available.
So we're playing word games and claiming HCTI is hybrid.
When the general public and general investor read that statement, they think "only nonisocyanate". Even you just challenged me to prove that there were other commercially availability nipu or hnipu.
People should know what they are investing in and not just what the company says or implies.
If you want, I can also dig the patents out from the 60's where isocyanate urethanes were made.
This is not new tech. This is not Earth shattering tech. Ignoring competition or dismissing facts that you don't like is getting really old.
Here's just the first search that came to mind
Iso free
First isocyanate free polyurethane.....absolutely false.
Maybe because they call their system "hybrid".
But yes, there are other commmercially available non-isocyanate polyurethanes.
It's all in how you define hybrid.
I've shown several non-isocyanate coatings that are commercially available before. It is false.
When I link to them, then the semantics begin. Yeah...it's isocyanate free, but it uses VOC's. It's isocyanate free, but they used them somewhere in the process....I can't prove it, but yeah.
Just look at the big chemical producers and you will find non-isocyanate coatings. You know this already, but whatever.
But a little DD on your part would have shown that statement to be false.
Who knows. All the connections that people love to draw for HCTI could literally be this patent at work.
There are nonisocyanate products all over.
It's not a coincidence, but it doesn't mean that they are in business together.
I work on carbon nanotube based soft materials and electronics as a function of their chemical composition. We host professors from all over the world to give lectures on research that is very similar to mine. We do this because it is interesting and we may gain insight into our own work. It's the same reason we publish and read scientific articles.
Here is Dr. Mannari's patent for a bio-based, non-isocyanate polyurethane.
Dr. Mannari's Patent
There is no mention of anyone but Mannari and the university. No NTI, no HCTI, no Dr. Figovsky.
So....if there is a partnership, it makes you think that HCTI would be paying for EMU's tech. Not the other way around.
All patents and inventions are to be reported. No specific numbers are listed on the pages available to the public it would seem.
Inventions and Patents
These type of things are typically handled by a single office that has no expertise in a specific field, but instead services all departments of the university. That seems to be the case at EMU as well.
Tech Transfer Office
I don't know what EMU's specific policy is, but from my own experience, I have seen universities that offer from 5-60% of ownership to the primary investigator in a lab for inventions and patents. This percentage is typically divided by the PI how he or she sees fit to the people involved in the project. If there is federal money involved, it suddenly becomes much more complicated. I can tell you that every lab I've ever been in or know someone in, has at least one federal grant. If that money was used to buy solvent, or a starting material, the silica for purification, or even if a student who is funded by fellowship spends time working on a project, then it is supposed to be disclosed.
The partnership brings more great minds to the table, but it isn't necessarily the greatest thing. HCTI would be better served by partnering or outsourcing to a private lab where the politics of academia aren't a concern.
Do you have financials to prove that loan?
1,004 shareholders and less than 10 support the CEO. That should tell you something!!!
Is this research also funded by the university? Since it's research being done on campus the easy answer is yes. You might want to look up EMU's IP policies.
I know what he is saying. I don't think anyone here is under the impression that start ups don't require many rounds of financing. The particular post that he referred to, though, mentioned the lack of insider ownership. He then posts a story of millions being put up front by the people that start companies. That is not the case here. The management, according to the filings I'm aware of, have not fronted the money for this company. The management makes 6 figures a year from this company. That's a very different company than he describes. There is no comparison. To imply that there is, is dishonest and manipulative at best.
So what you're saying is that your comment was completely off topic and was in no representative of, or comparing to HCTI.
So start your website and enjoy. If you're trying to make a comparison to HCTI, then that's about the funniest thing I think I've ever read.
Go back and take a good, hard look at the amount of shares held by insiders. Also, be sure to look at the compensation that the CEO is getting. Then consider that they are paying NTI a licensing fee of a million going forward. Guess who owns that company and sees that money. The CEO and the rest of the management have put in time, but they've also been well compensated for it.
Maybe I'm wrong though and you can show the agreements or financials where the CEO has loaned or invested his own "millions" here.
No worries, I'm incredibly angry at the company because I feel I was directly lied to about a couple of different situations. It is unfortunate that the outlet for our frustration ends up being one another on this board. Good luck to you. I sold the majority of my position and have held a very small amount of shares in hopes that there may be a spike that recoups some of what I have lost.
I had been watching this company for a while. I thought I had a good understanding of their product and the direction of the company and decided to buy in. Before doing so, I emailed them about the nature of the NTI vs HCTI relationship from my university email address with my title at the bottom.
I received emails from Kristul, Figovsky, Trossman, and Steve from IR. The answers they gave seemed solid. I missed a jump in pps because of the emails back and forth, but bought in happily.
Not even a month later, my account is down 75%. People on the board here have claimed to be experts and said there were absolutely no notes and absolutely no dilution. I didn't believe it and emailed the guys who were so happy to take time to talk with me before investing. My emails were forwarded to Steve from Kristul. No one else bothered responding. I was assured that Steve had "no knowledge" of notes or dilution. He maintained this assertion for some time. I would guess that if you called him now, he would still claim ignorance.
Like the good supporter, I averaged down and saw my account green on many days.
Fast forward several months, and filings begin to show that the NTI / HCTI relationship is more complicated than described. DBA isn't quite sufficient, because HCTI is licensing NTI's product. You don't pay yourself to use your own product. So that is my first issue. The second issue is that the modifications that have been pr'd were complete before I bought a single share. Yet, no products that we can claim. Next, is the complete mishandling of the flow of information. The copy and paste jobs are ridiculous. If that were the end of IR issues, fine. Unfortunately, it's not though. Where is the pr that Steve said was on his desk over a week ago? He sent it back for approval and it was coming last week. It was HUGE!!!
Finally, let's look at the RS. This is designed to benefit no one but the company. The way it has been presented, shows that they don't want to have to tell you when they are going to dilute. They don't want to even have to meet anymore to do it. They're just going to do it.
Also, notice that they claim over 50% of voting power between 7 people, but they only account for ~48%. They don't have the voting power that they claim to carry the motions. That doesn't stop them though.
Google the CEO and look specifically for his previous court cases. There are several instances where people claim they loaned money under certain conditions and never received anything back.
Also look for Winston Wolf's old postings. They leaked info on this board every time a pr was about to drop. You could watch the pps spike and then almost immediately drop. They hyped so they could get the highest price for their diluted shares.
Looking back, I think this should have been pretty obvious to me, but in the moment I accepted what the company told me. Now they are very blatantly telling you that they are going to RS and dilute.
There is constant speculation of competitor's products and mention of isocyanate this or that, that is completely irrelevant to this company. I believe that the people who showed up and post incessantly are either paid shills or very naive.
I think the science is good, but it isn't something that can't be done just as well and for a lot less production cost by the big manufacturers. A good product and poor leadership is a loser.
I think you can make some money here in the short term, but don't hold through the RS and ensuing dilution and be surprised when it happens.
It's a biased result. Go back and look at my posts about the science. Science doesn't care about your opinion, only what is physically true. I support the science done by this company. It's unfortunate that this product is tied to this management group.
I've attended a lot of regional and national ACS meetings. I've taken many of these surveys. They are multiple choice. Notice cost and ease of application weren't mentioned. What do you think people really care about?
I'm going to use what costs less and is easiest. If at the end if the day it saves the earth, great.
The twist is that someone presented data but didn't tell you how it was collected.
Then you try to compare me to a conspiracy theorist. Notice I didnt use a logical fallacy in my previous post.
I realize the potential. The problem is, I realize the competition and how the management has continued to mishandle situation after situation.
Unfortunately, you can't bet on just one. Management and the product are a package deal. They've told you exactly what they intend to do. Don't focus only on the positive and get surprised.
When you give people a survey with multiple choice and no open answers, it's easy to get the data you want.
This is survey bias, nothing more.
No way to know. If past performance is any indicator, then she shipped a single pallet and will have people here on the board talk about it for the next year.
You can't ignore a fact and name call just because don't like the fact. The debt is a fact. The dilution is a fact. The RS is a fact. The ratio of the RS and AS was a fact that it seems the company is now trying to obscure.
There is potential. No one can deny that. However, you can't deny the terrible mismanagement either.
The question seems to be what will win out: a product or the team that continues to stumble? My guess is that the product isn't good enough to overcome the negatives that come with the company. Especially when you consider that there is nothing that stops established competitors from producing similar products.
What has the pps done since the EPA award and appointment of Cushmac to the board?
This is rehashed over and over, but the market doesn't seem to care. Or if it did, the care was drowned in dilution.
The deal with IF. Great. What does their net value have to do with HCTI? These type of "facts" keep being brought up, but have nothing to do with this company.
IF has agreed to distribute this product. If it is a huge flop, who cares. They're not out much money. They'll still being doing business because this product is barely a drop in their bucket.
So....keep hoping, but again, don't be surprised when the management does to you exactly what they've been telling you they were going to do. RS, and then without the need for another vote, dilution.
You're right. They would rather make obscure references to competitor's products than read what the company is actually telling them.
Management has shown they can't do anything more than copy and paste. All the way from pr's to printing shares and cashing checks while shareholders lose. Copy and paste. Rinse and repeat. Dilute, RS, and dilute again.
It pertains to all those things you mention and they just showed where the company claims that all of those costs are solely NTI's and not HCTI's. Save the whole dba, because the company clearly makes the distinction. Also, save your threats and stay on topic.
I'm not sure what numbers you're referring to. Want to point us in the direction of any positive numbers?
You're right though, Rome wasn't built in a day. How many more YEARS do you want to give Francine?
Reading previous filings and realizing that "perhaps" what you're proposing is ludicrous is good practice as well.
A couple thousand dollars is substantial revenue to you?
How much was spent to generate said revenue? As I recall they lose money on every sale, so stating revenue is almost pointless anyways.