Ignore lists are your best friend on iHub.
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.
It has certainly gotten a lot of visibility lately. Given the nature of the situation, I've been forced to do DD at a ludicrous pace. I look forward to closure tomorrow so I can get back to the fun ones like GoIP Global.
The history behind aluminum metal matrix composites and their role in manufacturing is extensive. It goes back many years and has many implications.
You are right, it's a PR and they can always say one thing and do the other. We'll know very very soon.
I don't care much about the bashers. I'm doing this more for my peace of mind. I'm still not entirely comfortable with the whole situation. But if you start putting the pieces together for buyout price, technology patents, Talon Composites, history of Boralyn/Talbor, William Harrigan, secrecy, and possible links to Boeing, it all fits into place real nicely.
Still, it's fitting facts into a story that may not exist. And it still requires two companies to sit down and be on the same page, which is easier said than done. I am more optimistic now though than I have been to date.
You might want to probe your neighbor in the morning to see if he can find William Harrigan in the company directory. A confirmation that the ceramic/aluminum materials engineer works there would be a major finding. I'm requesting you to ask if you can. :)
I've researched this to the end of the Internet. When I started looking into William Harrigan, I found a lot of interesting info about the aluminum composite. I have no doubt in my mind now that Talbor is a breakthrough technology in the industry and worth an enormous amount of money.
I can not speak for whether the buyout is a scam or will fail or succeed. But it's plain as day that there were a lot of people working to build this technology over a lot of years at a global scale, and Talon Composites holds the patent to it.
If so, that doesn't support the idea that it might be Boeing. The Gamma Technology referred to in the newsletter had nothing to do with the automotive industry. Plus, Dr. Harrigan is more ingrained into aerospace, not auto. It doesn't matter much though at this point.
The newsletter specifically states Gamma Technology, LLC, not Gamma Technologies. And they supposedly work on Spherical Alumina reinforced aluminum composite, not simulations of engines and vehicles. Not the same company.
Let's not get hung up on that though. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's merely a hypothetical situation which aligns some facts, but raises other questions. No better really than a conspiracy theory.
You are correct. It's in LA county, the next county north of OC. This throws off the logistics of the Boeing idea a little bit. Not a lot, but a little. This was a mistake on my part. And this is only a hypothetical, not a definitive conclusion.
What did you graduate in? Any engineering perspective from there?
Gamma Technology, not Gamma Technologies. It specifically states the name. And it is most likely somewhere in or near Orange County.
It also said in the newsletter that Dr. Harrigan worked for Gamma Technology, LLC. I can't find that company anywhere. I am assuming that if deals were struck regarding an industry changing technology, there is bound to be some secrecy. He may never have worked for Gamma at all. But this is unknown, not a fact. I can not put this all together with 100% confidence yet. Just a possibility.
And you are correct, that one connection leaves much to be desired. LinkedIn is really not that useful other than basic info. Lots of people, including me, sign up once and barely ever use it again. Could be a halfway profile.
This guy also worked Alyn Corporation back before it went under and rebuilt as Talon Composites. He also has extensive experience in the aerospace industry. His specialty is aluminum composites.
http://www.asmwest.com/newsletter/February_2009%20Newsletter%20020409.PDF
Page 2
Assuming this goes through tomorrow, my top prospect as buyer is Boeing.
Researching the Potential Buyer:
In 2008, a person named Dr. Bill Harrigan signed on as an advisor to Talon Composites. In a letter to investors it says:
"Dr. Bill Harrigan, PHD Metallurgist has joined our team as an advisor to help define direction for the composites group and to assist us in development of advanced metal matrix composites for cast applications. Dr. Harrigan is highly respected in the industry and is a leader in advanced materials" (Ref. 1).
I located via LinkedIn a person named William Harrigan who works for Boeing in ceramic technologies (Ref. 2). He also resides in Orange County, where Talon Composites is located.
The boron carbide in Talbor is "an advanced ceramic that is the third hardest material in the world" (Ref. 3). Is it possible that The Dr. Bill Harrigan in the letter and William Harrigan at Boeing are the same person? The letter states that he is advising to "help define direction" of the development of metal matrix composites. Could it be that Boeing showed interest in the technology at Talon Composites and thus offered Dr. Harrigan to hone it so it fit Boeing's needs?
Talbor fits right into Boeing's scope of work and there is ample information on the Internet regarding how they turn to Universities such as Cal Poly and ASU for employees and new technologies. Look up ceramic or cast moldings or composites as well and they are involved. There is also a reference to a part-time engineering professor, Professor Bill Harrigan, at CSU Northridge, which is also in Orange County (Ref. 4).
If this Bill Harrigan is all one and the same, is the buyer Boeing? The secrecy would be perfectly understandable if it was. The binding contract between Boeing and Thresher in regards to Harrigan would most certainly call for non-competes and confidentiality agreements. Plus, causing a bidding war with Lockheed Martin or anyone else would set off a chain of legal events that would result in lawsuits against Thresher and/or negation of agreements.
Ref. 1: http://www.thresherindustries.com/Open%20Letter.pdf
Ref. 2: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/william-harrigan/10/32b/91b
Ref. 3: http://www.taloncomposites.com/
Ref. 4: http://www.ecs.csun.edu/msem/faculty.html
(My thoughts only, please be aware this is only speculation.)
Questionable out of date technology? Enlighten us please as to how the MMC with a production process using recycled aluminum and zero emissions biproduct is out of date. And please include a couple references as well, it would benefit all of us to be aware of this deficiency in their flagship product.
How do you know the SEC has received at least one complaint?
Would some people be willing to elaborate on the reputation of Xplosivestocks and their pay structure? They were incorrect on their last update about a buyer being revealed.
Companies pay the AP to carry their PRs on the wire, news outlets pay the AP to have access to that content. Money wouldn't actually exchange hands from Thresher directly to CNBC. I highly doubt CNBC cares or follows. They just publish the feed the same as Google And Yahoo and other news sources.
Companies pay the AP to carry their PRs on the wire, news outlets pay the AP to have access to that content. Money wouldn't actually exchange hands from Thresher directly to CNBC. I highly doubt CNBC cares or follows. They just publish the feed the same as Google And Yahoo and other news sources.
Have you seen the price tag on this April 2008 report about the global metal matrix composites industry? $3,950. Also, look at the list of names reported. Scam or buyout aside, this is a big market with a lot of money.
http://www.electronics-ca.com/products/Metal-Matrix-Composites-%252d-Global-Strategic-Business-Report.html
I don't like the recent PR. It doesn't make me all warm and fuzzy inside. Going back through all of them, none seem real well written though. Probably written by Flessner himself and not someone trained in wordsmithing. Still I don't like the terms offer and clarify, even if that is what it is.
On the other hand, if the deal isn't going through, why hold a conference call? Why not just issue a long-winded PR about it? And why include the Securities Counsel? It would take a lot of guts to announce by phone that they've been misleading everyone.
If it does go through, we can probably expect all trading to halt after today. Volume has dropped off, the deal will be finalized, there won't be any need for further trading.
It came off the Associated Press wire. It's an automatic system that publishes PR's. Has nothing to do with CNBC or anyone else.
I don't disagree this is a possibility. The way everything has been worded so far is a bit vague. I am unable to decipher whether this is due to deception, confidentiality, or to try and summarize a complicated deal. I have no reason yet to believe it is deception but have definitely not ruled it out. Someone there might just be really bad at writing PR's. I had a boss once who always wanted to do these types of things himself and they were awful. He thought they were great. Maybe that's Flessner. Good CEO, bad PR man. Time will tell.
EDIT: The next PR states the offer was 0.01 for any and all outstanding shares and that it was agreed upon by the Board of Directors and majority shareholders. So I'm not sure the offer was below 0.01. Nonetheless, these are the discontinuities we are dealing with.
I should clarify that this is most certainly still a risk. I'm in today with a modest position, but could be out tomorrow or prior to conference call or anytime depending on new info or change in evaluation. I will certainly let everyone here know right away if I change my position and why. I just don't want anyone lulled into thinking it is a lock because of what I post.
We've just about hit the limit on what DD we can do and how many different scenarios we can hash out. At this point, it's all coming down to the conference call and integrity of management.
However, if we're going to try and dig up some more, then let's call the transfer agent again tomorrow and confirm the O/S and A/S multiple times through the day. Also, let's blow up the phones over at Thresher and see if people get consistent answers from the secretary. For those who subscribe to Xplosivestocks.com, blow up their phones and ask why they issued a PR about a buyer being named today when it wasn't endorsed by Thresher, again looking for consistent answers. Call your friends who are lawyers, experts, brokers, etc., and find new information.
We have one day to keep discussing. Let's dig up new material and stop debating over what we already have beat to death.
Nah, those guys put out lots of cool apps with the open source mentality. When it comes to integrating tighter with real companies, money and ROI speaks volumes compared to open source altruism. If anything, it's confirmation that the pain exists.
Oh I see. I wasn't aware that they have to cover dividends as well.
You know what would be a better short squeeze than a dividend? Saying your release date is delayed until sometime in April, then popping a surprise PR that you are launching in March. Maybe a last minute one on the day of the launch.
I misread MONA's share price by a digit. If this is the case then 1.5 billion shares at 0.00035 would be about $525,000. I don't think I have it right.
Rhythm, what was the amount received for the purchase by MonArc Corp.? I only read the following and don't know how to decipher it:
"The buyer is a US based MonArc Corp www.monacorporation.com who will complete the purchase on all stock basis of about 1.5 billion shares."
I took that to mean that MonArc Corp. issued 1.5 billion of their shares to GOIG, which I'm guessing was in the neighborhood of 0.0035 in value. This equates to approximately $5.25 million. Am I reading that?
If the conference call is to inform shareholders that the deal isn't going through and the dilution was for nothing but to reverse split, they have a lot of guts to do it on a call. If I were to release that sort of info, I'd release a PR. Still being cautious.
I see the logic in your statement. They can continue on with the extra funds they made by dumping all those shares. That seems feasible.
Should they ever need more funding though, private or public, or enter into any major financial agreement, this situation will certainly reflect poorly on them from a credibility standpoint. You're right, it probably won't destroy the company. It will just put more strain on relationships, present and future.
We factor in the rewards of creating a scam, the current value of their intellectual property, and all these other variables, and none of it gives a definitive answer yet. It all comes down to whether the management is trustworthy or not. I believe they are trustworthy, but will not turn a blind eye to anything that says otherwise.
More attention than they anticipated? They put out PR's about a buyout offer. Exactly what sort of attention were they trying to go for?
Certainly possible. I'm more concerned with the terms of the buyout as opposed to whether the buyout is real. I am not oblivious to the risks involved here, but not oblivious to the fundamentals of the company either.
You're right, they have controlled it for 3 years. And there were 8+ years of development prior to that where they weren't involved. However, they have only had outside unbiased verification of the quality for less than a month.
I can not put an accurate value on that patent, but I can evaluate something else: the profitability of a scam and destruction of the company.
The increase in volume suggests that dilution started on 3/10, one day after the LOI, and continued through 3/18, a total of 7 days. We know it did not increase on Friday and I can't confirm for today.
I took the highs from each of those 7 days and came up with an average high of 0.0024. Assuming 10 billion shares dumped onto the public, you have:
10,000,000,000 x $0.0024 = $24 million
$24 million profit. This is assuming all 10 billion shares were dumped on us and at the very high of each day, which is highly unlikely. If this is a scam, they determined that $24 million is worth destroying the company and patents. Robin Carden, VP of Thresher, who has dedicated the last 11+ years of his life to this, would also have agreed that $24 million was worth ruining all of his credibility and everything Talbor would generate or stood for.
A scam is certainly not out of the question. But using a generous number for shares dumped and price it was dumped at to facilitate this scam, $24 million does not sound like much considering the background of this technology. And maybe I'm wrong, maybe it isn't worth that. However, someone here said Blackboard bought a patent for $17 million. They make educational software, not metal matrix composites approved for shielding nuclear radiation.
Yahoo! was made an offer by Microsoft well above their market value at a time they were losing money rapidly. YouTube was bought for $1.6 billion and they had no revenue model. You can not take current and past finances and make an accurate estimate of value without considering the effects of intellectual property on market monopolization.
That's not an answer. You are pretty confident that this is all a scam, which is fine. If so, you must have weighed the value of their property, plant, equipment, debt, contracts, and intellectual property against how much they would make dumping 10 billion shares onto unsuspecting investors. That is the only way you can determine whether a sale of the company or a scam is more profitable to the management.
Hawks_Stocks, what do you think the value of the patent is worth? Any speculation?
I don't know, but I would suspect someone with bigger manufacturing capacity and established global sales channels.
Did anyone call Olde Monmouth today and see if the O/S and A/S changed at all? I meant to but completely forgot.
Had to clear my cache. Now it's updated. Thanks.
Where is that PR on their website? I can't find it.
I still like it. I'm in with a modest position. I am not expecting a press release about the buyer today because I'm only going on the information Thresher has released, not promoters.
I thought about doubling my position as well because the DD looks strong. However, I am not as familiar with buyouts, especially on pink sheets, so I decided to maintain what I have now.
Apparently there is a bad history of pink sheet companies claiming buyout to raise share value, diluting, then dumping their shares to make money. It is possible with Thresher, but they have so much to lose if they scam people. They own a major technology that has been in development for 11+ years. The buyout lines up with the recent validation of quality they have. Among some other things, I can't see the motive for it.
If/when the buyout happens, the shares are worth 0.01 each. Unless it is some really shady wording of the PR, it looks pretty cut and dry.
Yes, I think we'll have to wait until the conference call on Wednesday. I'm optimistic but will certainly have my finger on the buy/sell trigger during it.
Lately, this stock hasn't been handling periods of inactivity real well. We'll have activity soon enough.