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.
FYI... Bill Smith has possible commercials airing on Dish for Lubrilon. Wonder how he came up with the money?
According to Lubrilon.com Its on the shelves at
Advance Auto Parts...
STORE#2820
817 LASALLE AVE
HAMPTON VA 23669
757-722-7038
New video on Youtube for Lubrilon....
As far as the contract for converting vehicles for the air force. (MAG international) White Lighting(http://www.e85racing.com) has that one now FYI
Serious Fluff. WTF!
I see the stock PPS holding up. IMO there must be something to this company but to what extent? It seems like this one started great, then people seen that a lot of the PRs at the beginning where just fluff BS. Now there still is alot of BS in the more recent PRs but my thought is there is something here. Maybe there hasn't been a PR recently because Mike finally got it that he can't release BS sooooo we wait.
- After all of this Xcelplus crap over the years I have to say thanks. I wouldn't be where I am at today because of it. Ones that know me know what I am talking about.
LOL Just read the last filing. On Dec 31st your CEO gave 650,000 shares as a gift. The statements when officers get paid in stock is good for the float is backwards. Shares don't come out of float for these stock payments, they are added to the O/S count FYI.
The Company is giving us all the middle finger right now.
Merry X-mas everyone. Perhaps one day this pig will fly.
It is possible that the volume of sells lately is Bill Smith dumping. The XLPI PR stated that funding was underway for Commercials. Maybe Billy boy is robbing from XPGH by dumping his shares to save XLPI. Guess banging nails wasn't for him.
I thought the board in place gave this one a good chance. Interesting
XLPI had news FYI...XcelPlus International (XLPI.PK: News ) said Thursday that its board is undergoing some restructuring.
Jon Chynoweth has stepped down as chairman of the board, along with 5 other members of the board as of November 30.
XLPI had news FYI...XcelPlus International (XLPI.PK: News ) said Thursday that its board is undergoing some restructuring.
Jon Chynoweth has stepped down as chairman of the board, along with 5 other members of the board as of November 30.
Interested in why the long delay in getting the Q out. Seen this song and dance before. I guess stocks like this one have a p&d in them about once every 2 years
The announcement from the EPA basically gets the ball rolling for some big changes in CO2 emissions. The EPA stated it will go after the big companies that put 25,000 tons. This bolds well for XPGH because these changes will deal with nothing but huge companies and Global should be in great position. Just hope they don't go after the small companies.
An endangerment finding allows the EPA to use the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions, which are produced whenever fossil fuel is burned. Under that law, the EPA could require emitters of as little as 250 tons of carbon dioxide per year to install new technology to curb their emissions starting as soon as 2012.
Big news today...The Environmental Protection Agency said greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare in a decision that could eventually lead to new emissions regulations.
The so-called "endangerment finding" announced Monday by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is necessary to move ahead on new emission standards for cars, while potentially opening up large emitters such as power plants, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants to limits on their output of carbon dioxide and other gases.
"These long overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the U.S. government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform," Ms. Jackson said in a statement.
The controversial decision, which the Obama administration indicated it would make earlier this year, comes as a global climate summit opens in Copenhagen, Denmark.
The endangerment finding sets up regulation of greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act, which some experts warn would be much more blunt than climate-change legislation crafted by Congress.
The EPA's finding "could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said earlier in a statement. "The devil will be in the details, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure we don't stifle our economic recovery," he said, noting that the group supports federal legislation.
EPA action won't do much to combat climate change, and "is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy," said the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group that stands as a proxy for U.S. industry.
Dan Riedinger, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, a power-industry trade group, said the EPA would be less likely than Congress to come up with an "economywide approach" to regulating emissions. The power industry prefers such an approach because it would spread the burden of emission cuts to other industries as well.
Electricity generation, transportation and industry represent the three largest sources of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.
Congressional Republicans have called on the EPA to withdraw its proposal, saying recently disclosed emails written by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia and their peers call into question the scientific rationale for regulation.
The EPA action gives President Barack Obama something to show leaders from other nations when he attends the Copenhagen conference on Dec. 18 and tries to persuade them that the U.S. is serious about cutting its contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions.
The vast majority of increased greenhouse-gas emissions is expected to come from developing countries such as China and India, not from rich countries like the U.S. But developing countries have made it clear that their willingness to reduce growth in emissions will depend on what rich countries do first. That puts a geopolitical spotlight on the U.S.
At the heart of the fight over whether U.S. emission constraints should come from the EPA or Congress is a high-stakes issue: which industries will have to foot the bill for a climate cleanup. A similar theme will play out in Copenhagen as rich countries wrangle over how much they should have to pay to help the developing world shift to cleaner technologies.
"There is no agreement without money," says Rosário Bento Pais, a top climate negotiator for the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm. "That is clear."
An endangerment finding allows the EPA to use the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions, which are produced whenever fossil fuel is burned. Under that law, the EPA could require emitters of as little as 250 tons of carbon dioxide per year to install new technology to curb their emissions starting as soon as 2012.
The EPA has said it will only require permits from big emitters -- facilities that put out 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. But that effort to tailor the regulations to avoid slamming small businesses with new costs is expected to be challenged in court.
Legislators are aware that polls show the public appetite for action that would raise energy prices to protect the environment has fallen precipitously amid the recession.
Congressional legislation also faces plenty of U.S. industry opposition. Under the legislation, which has been passed by the House but is now stuck in the Senate, the federal government would set a cap on the amount of greenhouse gas the economy could emit every year. The government would distribute a set number of emission permits to various industries. Companies that wanted to be able to emit more than their quota could buy extra permits from those that had figured out how to emit less.
Proponents of the cap-and-trade approach say emission-permit trading will encourage industries to find the least-expensive ways to curb greenhouse-gas output. But opponents say it will saddle key industries with high costs not borne by rivals in China or India, and potentially cost the U.S. jobs.
The oil industry has warned that climate legislation could force some U.S. refineries to shut down, because importing gasoline from countries without emission caps could be cheaper than making the gasoline on domestic soil.
Legislators "have decided that coal and electric users don't bear the burden" of emissions constraints for many years, said John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group. "Early in the program, oil users are the ones who are hammered."
The Iron and Steel Institute, which represents more than 75% of steel made in the U.S., said that successful climate policy -- whether through the EPA or Congress -- must "reduce emissions without altering the competitiveness of American steelmakers."
The issue of how curbing emissions would affect jobs in developed countries is likely to erupt in Copenhagen in the battle over how much rich countries should pony up for cleaner technologies in developing nations.
Estimates of the cost for reducing emissions in developing countries vary widely, but the European Commission said in September that the bill could reach $150 billion annually by 2020. Leaders of the EU's 27 nations have said only that the EU would pay its "fair share" of the total, without committing to an amount.
Yet EU industry lobbies are weighing in against that proposal. It is "not realistic," said Axel Eggert, spokesman for Eurofer, the trade group for European steelmakers. Steelmakers want to "make sure that the financing is not a subsidy for our competitors," he said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126020179812780059.html
Where does it say they were sold on the open market. Baseless claims. It could have been done in a private deal and yes it could have been sold for less than a penny. Or maybe .02. You will never know. LOL The pumping really has turned up and nada going on with the stock. I'm sure there is an uneasy feeling knowing that the company has to come up with big bucks by the end of this month to survive.(Its in the last fins) Same penny stock story over and over. Fluff baseless prs. The dump from the Co. is coming soon. IMHO
It is possible they got the shares for less than a penny. I guess no one will ever know considering its less than 10%.
Interesting. the PR before said they filed the S-1 now this one says the hired an attorney to file it. See where the fricken problem lies
What the heck are you talking about. Where does it say these shares came out of the float. They were sold to someone else and who knows what price. This is all the PR says so stop misleading the truth with your pump lies...
Secured Financial Network, Inc., stated that: “It has recently come to our attention that as of November 25, 2009, the Ann Jaffe Irrevocable Trust has completed the liquidation of its entire position of SFNL stock
This is something that is known. It was sold off to someone else at a big discount no doubt. You know times are bad when a company has to release a pr like that. Sounds like the company has to sell mucho stock to survive and is starting to pump it with PRs. Real companies would not even bother putting something like that out.
LOL The pumping is pure entertainment. Good thing that 200 share trade at the EOD for .10 makes all of you feel great about this stock. I expect to hear 8 months from now.. Finally profitability in 2011. Year after year the same pump on this stock and it never comes.
Reviewed fins will include more info besides investors want to see statements in prs to actually happen or future prs become worthless. As far as gen x its more a wait and see there is a very small amonut of info on genx to figure out what the real worth is
Reviewed Financials soon. Exactly what does soon mean? Definately means longer than a month with this company.
So you are admitting you are the CFO of SFNL?
Speaking about Oil. Great little short video I found on you tube...
Wow a whopping seven thousand spent on stock peanuts to what he makes a year off the shareholders
Colas is the leader in construction and maintenance of road, air, and maritime transport infrastructure
Rev for last year was 8.7 Billion Euro (over $12 Billion dollars)
Does the other company you head know you are using company funds to buy sfnl?
wow a wopping 1400 shares at .081 and the rest at under .07
Got to snatch them .067s now
.065 x .069 Ouch
The last PR headline read files for move to OTC. Still waiting on the S-1 filing. It appears the play on words is still happening.
My last post pointed out the contracted services issue. We will find out more of what Global owns soon and whu the traveling. Global has a nice chunk of cash acailable also. Just a few poinys
Contracted services of $215,000. I believe a big chunk of that is the cost of getting the audit done. We wanted audited numbers didn't we?
"With a full audit in progress, company management believes it would be prudent at this time to file an S-1 with the SEC to emerge from Pink Sheets and move to the Over the Counter exchange," Parsons added.
The prices after the 50 cent sub are probably close to the same as fuel oil now. That will change when Oil goes up and the government figures out how to get more companies to use renewables.
Look at the latest filing on Pinksheets. The letter from from the attorney does not include the scary paragraph we have been so used to in the past. Anyone know how long it takes for an S-1 to be approved
A gross profit of $440,000 for one month is definately a good sign
I actually like this PR. The fact that they are actually making a profit and have secured contracts is a good thing. Expansion of sales into different locals will continue to bring in more revs and profits. At a time when fuel oil is low these are good numbers. When Oil gows up as we are starting to see the profits will increase. If the reviewed numbers can verify this PR then the street will react in a positive way. There are many OTC companies working at a huge loss quarter after quarter that have much larger market caps.
Finally this company is starting to make the move in a positve direction.
And the biggest thing to get excited about...
In addition, the line of credit matures on December 31, 2009 and we do not presently have the funds necessary to satisfy this obligation. If we were unable to pay these amounts, the lender could seek to foreclose on the assets of our subsidiary which represents substantially all of our operations. If we are unable to raise the necessary capital, we could be forced to curtail some or all of our operations and it is likely that investors would lose their entire investment in our company.
At September 30, 2009 we had a bank overdraft of $19,378 and there were no funds available under our line of credit which is due on December 31, 2009. The Company continues to raise cash through the sales of its common stock and borrowing to fund its daily operations and to meet payroll
There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain funds at favorable terms to the Company. As described elsewhere herein, we do not have sufficient funds to pay our outstanding debt obligations which are approximately $5,048,447 and we believe we will need approximately $2,000,000 of additional working capital to fund our ongoing operations.