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.
Xeno, do you think High C is beggining to figure it out yet? LOL
Crow, I think many people believe that Baxa paid for all the units and the money has already been spent.
My personal take is that as part of an exclusive distributor agreement, Baxa accepted and paid for an initial inventory of units up front. However, most of those units never sold and remain in the CDEX wherehouse pending instructions from Baxa.
The story goes that some of those units will be sold after the customer requested signatures become available from CDEx.
Since the units are still in the possession of CDEX and are not fully configured, they cannot be considered completed sales. That is the new SEC reg. posted by Xeno and described in the CDEx 10K.
Your version shows no mercy whatsoever! If you're correct and CDEX never received funds for those units then CDEX is telling what huge whopper of a lie.
A blatant in your face lie.
I don't sell it. But I'm thinking that maybe we can sell ValiJuice machines to verify the master molecule content of every bottle.
Worst, he wears a toupe.
OT: Someone recently gave me 4 liters of free Goji Juice to evaluate and give my opinion. It sells for 50 bucks a bottle! LOL
They claim that 60 ml of juice per day and you'll feel like a million bucks in 10 days.
It's a MLM scheme.
A new fountain of youth elixir or hope in a bottle as an investigative reporter called it.
And it's not just your typical Goji Juice sold on the internet, this stuff is the only one guaranteed to contain the the highest quality of polysaccaride "master molecules"!
And get this, the the "master molecule" contain of each bottle is guaranteed by a "spectral fingerprint" using a "spectrophotometer"! LOL
2006 sales were reported to be 600 million for this one product alone.
My 10 day report is due this Wednesday if i file on time.
OT: I've been recently following a company called Free Life and their Himalayan Goji Juice being peddled by spokesman and "noted" nutitionist "Dr." Earl Mindell.
Sound familiar? LOL
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2007/01/goji.html
http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2005/11/health-food-store-hosts-vitamin.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=Earl+Mindell
http://www.mlmwatch.org/
http://www.worldwidescam.info/
That's what I thought, now the only question remaining is how many of those units has Baxa sold pending the customer requested signatures?
It doesn't seem likely that we're going to see sales until Baxa unloads their existing inventory.
Does CDEX have any units remaining or will they need to come up with funds for another production run?
The only way it appears that they can get out of the hole is by selling PP shares.
This goose is cooked.
Crow, what do you make of this:
The Company has deferred revenue of $638,000 as of January 31, 2007 which it expects to recognize as revenue in 2007. The deferred revenue is for Valimed(TM) units delivered to and paid for by Baxa for which there will be additional software installations
Did Baxa pay CDEX $638K for their initial Valimed inventory, yes or no?
Because it isn't costing them anything, cept for that initial inventory purchase collecting dust at the wherehouse.
"ZERO SALES MEANS ZERO CASH FLOW!!"
Not eggxactly (TM- Stock) Drumbah, they're still selling dem shares, but still have a negative cash flow:
During the three months ended January 31, 2007, the Company received $516,090 in funding...
As of January 31, 2007, we had negative working capital of $1,563,437, including $81,687 of cash and cash equivalents. We anticipate the need to raise approximately $750,000 over the next six months, and an additional $2,000,000 over the following twelve months to satisfy our current budgetary projections.
Ahhhh.... I'm upset. No one recited my favorite warning sign for bogus science:
"It's A New Physics"
- Artabraham
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.
I began this list of warning signs to help federal judges detect scientific nonsense. But as I finished the list, I realized that in our increasingly technological society, spotting voodoo science is a skill that every citizen should develop.
It was a smart move for MP to abandon all the tomfoolery that Loch Harris was pitching about x-rays sensing at 30 meters and magical "low atmospheric absorption windows" and real time detection. All which required a "new physics" explanantion.
The "new" and improved Loch/CDEX technology being reduced to a standard fluorometer utilizing special or "innovative" software applied to niche markets.
O/T or not O/T, that is the question:
Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
Robert L. Park, Ph.D.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is investing close to a million dollars in an obscure Russian scientist's antigravity machine, although it has failed every test and would violate the most fundamental laws of nature. The Patent and Trademark Office recently issued Patent 6,362,718 for a physically impossible motionless electromagnetic generator, which is supposed to snatch free energy from a vacuum. And major power companies have sunk tens of millions of dollars into a scheme to produce energy by putting hydrogen atoms into a state below their ground state, a feat equivalent to mounting an expedition to explore the region south of the South Pole.
There is, alas, no scientific claim so preposterous that a scientist cannot be found to vouch for it. And many such claims end up in a court of law after they have cost some gullible person or corporation a lot of money. How are juries to evaluate them?
Before 1993, court cases that hinged on the validity of scientific claims were usually decided simply by which expert witness the jury found more credible. Expert testimony often consisted of tortured theoretical speculation with little or no supporting evidence. Jurors were bamboozled by technical gibberish they could not hope to follow, delivered by experts whose credentials they could not evaluate.
In 1993, however, with the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. the situation began to change. The case involved Bendectin, the only morning-sickness medication ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It had been used by millions of women, and more than 30 published studies had found no evidence that it caused birth defects. Yet eight so-called experts were willing to testify, in exchange for a fee from the Daubert family, that Bendectin might indeed cause birth defects.
In ruling that such testimony was not credible because of lack of supporting evidence, the court instructed federal judges to serve as "gatekeepers," screening juries from testimony based on scientific nonsense. Recognizing that judges are not scientists, the court invited judges to experiment with ways to fulfill their gatekeeper responsibility.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer encouraged trial judges to appoint independent experts to help them. He noted that courts can turn to scientific organizations, like the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, to identify neutral experts who could preview questionable scientific testimony and advise a judge on whether a jury should be exposed to it. Judges are still concerned about meeting their responsibilities under the Daubert decision, and a group of them asked me how to recognize questionable scientific claims. What are the warning signs?
I have identified seven indicators that a scientific claim lies well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse. Of course, they are only warning signs -- even a claim with several of the signs could be legitimate.
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.
One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that they had discovered cold fusion -- a way to produce nuclear fusion without expensive equipment. Scientists did not learn of the claim until they read reports of a news conference. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery and was devoid of the sort of details that might have enabled other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or to repeat the experiment. (Ian Wilmut's announcement that he had successfully cloned a sheep was just as public as Pons and Fleischmann's claim, but in the case of cloning, abundant scientific details allowed scientists to judge the work's validity.)
Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney. In the case of cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists who were protecting their own research in hot fusion.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.
Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.
Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.
I began this list of warning signs to help federal judges detect scientific nonsense. But as I finished the list, I realized that in our increasingly technological society, spotting voodoo science is a skill that every citizen should develop.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/signs.html
The confidence holds steady.....
Please don't anyone tell me that a couple peeps on the TCL board are attempting to compare MM by a hedge fund manager with
a few so-called bashers posting on a penny stock chat board.
Raiderman and INET, congratulations, you've finally figured out why the CDEx PPS has been driven down so low.
Good yob eh?
The General is pleased.
Volume is showing great investor confidence- on the INET Scale.
And you're right Sand, Drumbah is getting a little creative. LOL
So what's the concensus on the filing deadline for the 10Q, 5 calendar days from Monday, March 19th?
That would be Saturday, March 24th which would push the deadline to Monday, March 26th?
Is that right?
Four Scamsters and a Crow- The Story of...
Not to worry Sanddollar, my storyboard already includes several depictions of Tommyboy including a scene from his RB interview where he boasted being a savvy Florida stock broker and No.1 member-marked poster on RB, his wife's 4th of July party at their purple house, and his post-Loch demise (pending) at the hands of the IRS.
This is, of course, if I accept Mr. Xeno's kind offer to be commissioned chief illustrator of ________________ (insert book title*).
* Nae doot, Crow will suggest the title: "Crow and the___________ (insert book subtitle here)".
Ahura Scientific Secures $7 Million Venture Capital Investment
Funds to be Used to Accelerate Penetration of New Markets
Wilmington, MA —March 9, 2007—Ahura Scientific, Inc., a leader in rugged, handheld optical systems for chemical identification, today announced it has expanded its equity funding with an additional $7 million infusion of investment capital, bringing the total funds invested to date to $29.5 million. This investment is a result of the company’s strong growth and aggressive product development pipeline and will be used to support the company’s expansion into the pharmaceutical and medical markets.
“Ahura Scientific continues to perform well,” said Nina Saberi , founder and partner at Castile Ventures. “With such strong opportunity, innovative products and extraordinary technical ability, the investors provided additional resources to support the company’s expansion and to speed entry into new markets. Because of Ahura Scientific’s prospects, we’ve set aside an additional pool of capital to address emerging market opportunities as well,” Saberi continued.
The funding demonstrates continued support for the company’s strategic vision with all of the previous investors participating in the round. Investors include ARCH Venture Partners, Castile Ventures, ComVentures, and the GF Private Equity Group, LLC.
With product revenues doubling each of the past two years, Ahura Scientific has firmly established itself in the first responder and military markets with its flagship product, FirstDefender. Momentum is building rapidly for TruScan, the company’s newest handheld spectrometer for pharmaceutical and industrial applications. Launched last month, TruScan was designed to provide instantaneous authentication of raw materials and finished goods.
“We’re pleased to close this financing and secure the funds needed to fuel our continued growth and market expansion,” said Doug Kahn, chairman and CEO of Ahura Scientific, Inc. “Exciting new markets for handheld chemical identification systems continue to emerge. Ahura Scientific is at the forefront of the technology and is well-positioned to meet this demand with an expanding range of new products. This financing enables us to address these emerging market opportunities quickly and to broaden our leadership position.”
About Ahura Scientific, Inc.
Ahura Scientific, Inc. develops rugged, ultra-compact, field-enabled optical systems for the immediate identification and authentication of liquid and solid chemical substances. Customers include the homeland security, life sciences, industrial and medical markets. Manufactured in the USA in an ISO 9001-certified facility, the company’s products offer exceptional portability and unparalleled performance.
http://www.ahuracorp.com/press/pr_20070309.html
Holy..... that's about as steep as I've ever seen.. I'm still wondering how he got his snow board on when he was standing on the very peak! The snow didn't look too stable!!!
Sorry High C, your scenario does not fit the CDEX MO in the least. It's just wishful thinking on your part as usual.
Aronson resigned, they quit. That is the news, the rest is consequences.
If there was any way to spin it differently you can bet that the CDEx weasel words would have never included the word resignation!
But they still tried to spin it the best they could, didn't they? Enough to allow some of you to make excuses claiming it was about the move or so Malc could "get in his car and sit down with the auditors because he's such a novice CEO"! LOL!!!!!!!
Loch Harris/CDEX has a very untrustworthy history in the PR department. I don't think anyone can argue that. Or as Ceedeex puts it:
"What the PR describes is consistent with the weasel and deceiving manner shareholders have become accustomed to."
LMAO! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
"Being CFO with little experience, I believe Malcolm would find it convenient to jump in a car and sit down with his finacial overseers,or whatever,to keep things as clean as possible."
Damn you can be funny Harry!
BTW, I thought Timmy is signing all the paperwork now.
They've got to be kiddin"! ! ! !
"... the resignation of Aronson & Company ("Aronson") as the independent auditors for the Company as of March 12, 2007."
Aronson & Company gave CDEX da boot??? LOL Now why would a reputable accounting firm give one of their customers da boot? They've failed to take continuing education courses in Moonie Math?
Things appear to be winding down with an uncanny similarity to Loch Harris. (meth gun = VAMMP)
"The decision to change auditors was approved by the audit committee of the Company's Board of Directors on March 12, 2007."
Well I'm glad to see that the "audit committee" isn't "asleep behind the switch". Boy! That committee is sure on the ball! They decided to change auditors right after Aronson resigned and approved that decision on the very same day.
It's comforting to know that we have professionals running this show and they can make those tough decisions without hesitation.
Excuse me for slingin' it Trader, just trying to get some sheet to stick! LOL
Of course Crow, why announce bad news when it can be cleverly deferred for 6-9 months!
Better yet, why not announce good news which can be updated (downgraded) or simply ignored at a later date.
Bear in mind Stricklands motto, the most important asset a company has is its shareholders and what do shareholders want to read?
My guess is shareholders want to read positive news about the meth gun, but you know what I think.
Remember that poster on the RB Loch board years ago that went by the alias
million21shot?
High C, at .20/share I think you're a little high. The dollar value of the public float is around 10 million assuming 50,000,000 issued to "public investors".
public float
Definition
The portion of a company's outstanding shares that is in the hands of public investors, as opposed to company officers, directors, or controlling-interest investors.
http://www.investorwords.com/3936/public_float.html
So the latest filing date is the 17th (45 days)?
When is the 10Q due, 45 days after the end of Q1? eom
"Wow Paige, welcome to 2007. You're only about 6 years behind the class."
LOL!!
Ralph James, Pamela Ward and...
don't forget Hewitt's (?) investigation of using a COTS XRF for land mine detection by sensing the Hg/Pb-based charge initiators. That one was either a Sandia, DARPA or CRREL study.
I've got the link on another puter.
I think that study may have influenecd the way the Loch/CDEX "inventors" put razzle-dazzle into the ELF show.
I guess for the most part it is a zero sum game, except for those rare times where a company builds wealth- something even less likely with penny stocks.
This whole article is a good refresher...
Investing in stocks is just like gambling.
This reasoning causes many people to shy away from the stock market. To understand why investing in stocks is inherently different from gambling, we need to review what it means to buy stocks. A share of common stock is ownership in a company. It entitles the holder to a claim on assets as well as a fraction of the profits that the company generates. Too often, investors think of shares as simply a trading vehicle, and they forget that stock represents the ownership of a company.
In the stock market, investors are constantly trying to assess the profit that will be left over for shareholders. This is why stock prices fluctuate. The outlook for business conditions is always changing, and so are the future earnings of a company.
Assessing the value of a company isn't an easy practice. There are so many variables involved that the short-term price movements appear to be random (academics call this the Random Walk Theory); however, over the long term, a company is only worth the present value of the profits it will make. In the short term a company can survive without profits because of the expectations of future earnings, but no company can fool investors forever - eventually a company's stock price can be expected to show the true value of the firm.
Gambling, on the contrary, is a zero-sum game. It merely takes money from a loser and gives it to a winner. No value is ever created. By investing, we increase the overall wealth of an economy. As companies compete, they increase productivity and develop products that can make our lives better. Don't confuse investing and creating wealth with gambling's zero-sum game.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/061902.asp
BTW, whether trading CDEx is a "zero sum game" or not is really irrelevant. The important point is to note where the majority of the money is going and why.
In Game theory this is called an abnormal beneficary distribution.... or scam. LOL
Zero-Sum Game
A situation in which one participant's gains result only from another participant's equivalent losses. The net change in total wealth among participants is zero; the wealth is just shifted from one to another.
Investopedia Says: Options and future contracts are examples of zero-sum games (excluding costs). For every person who gains on a contract, there is a counter-party who loses. Gambling is also an example of a zero-sum game.
A stock market, however, is not a zero-sum game because wealth can be created in a stock market.
http://www.answers.com/topic/zero-sum-game
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zero-sumgame.asp
Mr. Trader661,
I looked back and could see that my "Closer" anology and "me, me, me..." statements were uncalled for and I apologize.
Your li'l Huckleberry,
diddy
Yet another curious comment from a self-proclaimed CDEX PP investor....
"I swing trade CDEX and net 45K over about a 14 month period. About a 120% return on my money..."
Hmmm, he made $45K swing trading a stock that has been going south (with very minor up swings) for the last 14 months?
An unpredictable stock that trades thin with sudden, but brief jumps in volume?
Now that certainly gets the imagination running wild! LOL
Oh yeah you're right . . . . . .
$2387,000 - 150,000 = $2,237,000
Hey look at that, Xeno got pretty close: $2,235,017 LOL
"So for the Q1 10-Q I will estimate that the negative working capital as of 31 January 2007 was $2,235,017
Any other guesses before we find out next week?"
$2,387,000
Trader661 loves to use the buzz phrase, "it's a zero sum game". While Trader evidently thinks this is a game, some people invested their hard earned money knowing it was a risk, but thinking they were dealing with an honest company with a revolutionary new product that was going to save lives.
We now know they were lying crooks and a lot of honest folks lost their investment, something he fails to mention in his arguments.
A question was raised:
"If you saw somebody stealing your neighbor's car, would you just sit back and do nothing?"
Trader661 answered:
"If I saw someone stealing my neighbors car, I would probably shoot the thief. If I was at my neighbors house and saw him invest in a stock, I would wish them the best of luck on their trade." (Note: Trader misses the point that the car thief is a metaphor for the stock company.)
Here's a different version of that question that Trader may find less confusing:
If you saw someone steal your car, then you saw the same person stealing your neighbor's car, would you just sit back and do nothing?
I'm sure that Trader would probably want to empty his clip on the thief. So what would he do if he went to his neighbors house and saw them buying a car from the same thief? Would he still wish them the best of luck on their new car?
Hardly.
This dude reminds me of Closer, as long as he's not left holding the bag he don't give a sheet
Me, me, me...... it's all about me.
OT: One more, when does a gadget become a gizmo?
OT: Whats the difference between a widget and a gizmo? No cheating on google!
I know sanddollar, I can go back at lot further and fill in the gaps with tons of stuff, but I think Paige got my point.
COI! LOL