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 hope you'll let us know what Mr. Saxe says in his reply to you.
And if he did indeed send out that invitation I hope you can admit your mistake.
I am also not sure how credit scoring works for businesses but it never hurts to have loans that you pay off regularly. It helps you acquire financing from banks and other lenders in the future.
Hard to say for sure but I'm sure you could speculate as well as I could. Maybe they would rather use all their current cash holdings for stuff like improving PAK-IT production (which they are currently doing) and funding P2O expansion (which they are doing).
I think most of the money from their tape business has been going to expansion and acquisitions...but that's just my opinion.
Someone from the company claimed they were debt free on a post this morning?
Or was someone just mistaken?
EDIT: Good Call. One of the items in the PRO list is that the company is debt free. It should be changed to read that the company retired millions of dollars of debt and then later took on a small $270,000 loan and now has this small amount of debt.
I'm sure Z will fix that.
The company was debt free, and reported as such at a time when it was. I think they retired Millions in debt and have now taken on a $270,000 loan?
Hardly worth worrying about. However I believe that since taking on this new tiny loan they have not claimed to be debt free. Check the dates of the PR's though to be sure. My memory is not perfect.
That looks like a real company executing and trying to be transparent with their operations. I think as long as they keep executing things should pick up.
Looks like support at $4 is holding for now. Sure like to see it keep holding so we can get up on the Nasdaq.
Convenient. When you have the time, since you are more versed at finding old PR's than I, go find us some LOI's that were PR'd by large successful companies.
Or are you really willing to say that no successful company has ever PR'd an LOI?
And you have no proof that they don't have a machine up and running and numbers to support the conversion rate claims they have made.
You'll notice I have not claimed that the big machine works as publicized. I've said we need to wait for the results.
The difference us is I am willing to wait till April 24 to see those results.
Look, you're trying to compare JBII to MSFT or Google? I thought that was impossible!
Do you know if they ever PR's a LOI back when they were just startups? That would be the only statement (if you had proof) that would be worth anything here.
Comparing JBII to multi-billion dollar companies just doesn't make any sense. Let's stay realistic here folks.
I guess about as much as you did to support anything you've said.
Everything they have talked about since the ASTM testing (which tested oil output from the small Blest machine I believe) has been the big processor. You can see pictures of it in the iBox.
I don't think they've mentioned it once in months. Can you find any mention of it?
They used, to my knowledge, the Blest machine to test the catalyst. Apparently it worked to their satisfaction.
I'd be surprised if their Blest machine is much more than a paperweight right now since it doesn't have anything to do with the big processor.
Again just because you aren't privy to information doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.
Claim it fiction all you want but they have promised to produce a machine on April 24th. I guess we'll see who is right.
What does Blest's little bitty machine have to do with the large processor that is currently being finalized?
TIA.
Glad you ignored the rest of my post.
All I see in your response is opinion and your personal preference. I doubt JB does much on what any one man's personal preference is. Looks like he's trying to do what is best for a new company trying to build itself right from the ground up.
Looking forward to seeing it. I'm just said I don't have any money to buy on this dip.
Unless you've called Blest, or JBI, to talk with them about this and their relationship what reason/evidence do you have to suggest that Blest would be upset in any way?
Since JB probably documented which tape it came from and how/when he procured the tape (by purchasing it from people who no longer wanted it) I don't see the tape as an issue.
Don't try to spin things, and lay off of people for their choice of words. The stuff that is put into the processor IS new...as in it has NOT been done before therefore creating a NEW/DIFFERENT process.
Having a fully operational OIL development site is NOT as simple as opening up a subways sandwhich shop.
Does it matter? If he sold the tape wouldn't he have sold any rights to the contents of the tape?
As I asked you earlier though he didn't actually sell them did he? Later on it details the 100,000 that he transferred to Media4Equity (no reason given) and then 1,000,000 that he gave to his relative.
When it says "sale" here does it just mean "given to" or do you think he received monetary compensation for the sell and that these shares are now back in the open for all to trade. It doesn't sound like that to me.
Ah, apparently I got the date messed up. My bad.
That's the one though.
Right side of the page where you can search their site, or the web, or businesses. Just under that there is a "search full text archive" or something like that. Click that and search there when it loads the page.
I'd do it and load pictures but I'm seriously crawling here. It was there though, I have no reason to lie.
The 1997 was just in a line next to his name. Could be that they didn't archive it until then. Or maybe they reprinted it on that date for some reason.
No idea. I also am too cheap to spend the money to buy the article...I also don't feel the need to read it though I know many would like to.
When I found the article it was from the Toronto Star. www.thestar.com
At the moment it isn't letting me search their archives...keeps timing out. Could be my crappy Peruvian internet though. Just go to their homepage, go to their full text archive search area and look for John Bordynuik.
I'm not sure if it was $3.95 Canadian or US.
EDIT: Ok it finally came up. I found the article. It was written by Bill Taylor of the Toronto Star, June 20 1997.
The last time this came up I remember wondering how easy that article would be to find.
I found it after 3 minutes of searching Google for Toronto newspapers, and then searching their archives. You'll have to pay their fee for the full text of the article though. I think it was $3.95.
Feel free to elaborate on how the JBII waste plastic to oil conversion system is so much more efficient than other existing systems, some of which are already producing commercially.
So, if you are right, then we should see the SEC take action against JBI for posting false information in their 8K.
However if you are wrong then the TA will update their information and put out the new numbers that line up with the 8K and all you will be able to gripe about is the amount of time it took for JB to get that medallion signature to the TA or for the TA to recognize it, and do the paperwork.
I guess we'll both just have to wait.
Why are you refusing to acknowledge that he posted that based on an 8K filed by Domark that spoke directly towards the topic.
Now we have a new filing and he has stated that obviously that other one is wrong and that he believes that Kidd now has shares due to the new filing.
Is there a reason you are refusing to recognize what is being said now?
By unloading you mean that he gave them to other people. He didn't sell them.
Do you think all filings should be ignored as an information source? Certainly you wouldn't claim that would you?
The fact of the matter is that the people saying he had no shares were referencing a filing (no I don't have the link handy, go search for it). They made those statements with the information at hand.
Now they are making corrected statements with the new information. What more do you want?
Yes the CEO mentioned that the shares, at time of disbursement, had a 12 month hold on them. It will indeed be interesting to see why that changed, or if he was mistaken as to those shares in the first place.
however i do plan on buying some of his shares if he chooses to dump causing a drop in the price.
Using the best information he had at the time.
Now a new filing is out and we all have new information. I don't see the big deal. The big deal would come if Zardiw was to say that "nope, he still doesn't have the shares."
He said nothing of the sort. In fact he pointed out the very pertinent fact that Kidd now has 1M LESS shares.
Kidd, though apparently not a great guy, is not an idiot. Seeing that the price has bounced off of $7 twice now why would he sell the bulk, or all, of his shares down here under $5? Maybe he sells some but he knows about the shareholder meeting. He has to know that, as we get closer to April 24, as long as he is a little patient this stock will walk itself up and then explode once P2O is shown to work as has been described.
I think it would be good for both sides to be less....sensationalistic. We've got bashers crying the 'doom of the company.' Give me a break. On the other hand we have longs crying that the company is about to 'go to the moon.'
Let's all be realistic here...and patient.
Good. We welcome honest dialogue.
You still haven't proven the statement that I quoted.
EDIT: Volume very weak so far. I've heard chart readers say this is a good thing during a consolidation period. I'm no chart reader though.
Thanks for chiming in. Your opinions are welcome.
its clearly been promoted big time
Actually according to the PDF you linked his problem was back in 2007 and 2008...neither of which were "last year."
That may be being picky but no less so than what you are coming up with. The fact of the matter is that in the past this man had a problem. Unlike so many others he actually dealt with it and got on with his life.
The bottom line here is I don't care if he drank himself away. He dealt with his problems and got recertified and got back to work. Maybe he was recommended and was looking for clients and could get the filing that JB needed at the time (see your own link) quickly at a time when the company was in a rush to get a filing done.
Why does his past matter...only the quality of his work should matter now.
So what? This has been discussed here previously. Are you saying that people can't recover from something like alcoholism and be successful in the workplace?
What do you want? Sounds like if John B. himself called you and told you what the deal is you would not believe him either. Would anyone or anything satisfy you? I tried but it seems hopeless.