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.
Are you trying to convince me that I have made a good investment for the future here? That is kind of like trying to sell me the car I am already driving. When I ask questions or answer questions, it does not mean that I am anti-Greenshift.
Okay DHOLE, I thought about it. Do you think that YAGI loaned KK 40 million dollars because they think he is a nice guy? No collateral? Maybe we should get in on it. Borrow money from YAGI at no risk, and buy all the shares of GERS that are being diluted (I mean being used for important things). Perhaps we should stop using the word dilution all together. What about creative liquidation instead?
By the way, I drink 2%. I have to have a little milk fat.
DHOLE,
Are you trying to say that they are paying the inventors with revenues that they are not claiming, and that is where the money is going?
Please re read slashnuts post again. I am beginning to think that you struggle with the english language is it your first language?
Indeed. Notice also, that the 5th calendar day would have been Sunday not Monday.
Wrong. Non-cash payments do not necessarily mean shares of stock.
Actually other forms of non-cash payments have been trading assets for debt elimination.
Future forms of paying debt to YAGI could come via patents, if things do not turn around by years end.
Well stated.
What is your one open-ended question?
Let's have a brain storming session to better understand GERS 1Q shall we?
Rules:
No idea is considered stupid, in fact the crazier the better.
Do not attack posters.
We will collect all ideas, list them and then try and shoot holes in each idea one by one.
Do not begin shooting holes in ideas until the list is complete.
Reply to this post when you post an idea so that we do not lose track.
I am struggling with this also. On the one hand our revenues are about where kk said they would be. On the other hand small_bull reminds us that q3 2011 had substantial revenue based on royalty payments.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm....... I wonder if most of the q3 2011 revenue was from selling and installing systems, not corn oil royalties?
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011 Compared to Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
Revenue and operating income improved during the three months ended September 30, 2011 in comparison to the
same period last year, with $6.3 million in revenue and $839,000 in operating income during the third quarter of this
year as compared to $1.7 million in revenue and $1.9 million in operating losses from the three months ended
September 30, 2010.
The increase in revenue and operating margins was due to the overall impact of the new technology licensing
agreements that we have executed to date.
Fourtwo,
Can you help explain what non-cash expenses are?
How do you incur non-cash legal expenses? Is that handled with issuance of common stock, or did they some how barter some of the royalties for a period of time?
Approximately $1.7 million in expenses incurred during the first quarter of 2012 were non-cash and included about $580,000 in accrued interest expense, about $150,000 in expenses associated with the change in value of the Company’s conversion liabilities, and about $400,000 in accrued royalty expense incurred in connection with our increased corn oil production during the quarter. Another $600,000 of the non-cash expenses incurred during the first quarter of 2012 related to increased legal costs incurred mostly as a result of our ongoing litigation for patent infringement. We have entered into a modified contingency-based agreement with Cantor Colburn, LLP, our lead counsel in our infringement litigation, pursuant to which we are only required to pay $50,000 per month in cash. Accordingly, most of the increased legal costs incurred during the quarter were non-cash.
I am not buying or advising at this time.
I do not think that a settlement will happen without an injuction, as there is no benefit to the infringers to settle. An injunction may convince them that GERS could likely win the suit, a motive to settle.
P.S. I think I just saw the grim reaper.
P.S.S. has anyone heard from Slashnuts?
I agree with your initial interpretation. Where we part ways is your opinion that we should divide the quarters evenly. If they still have customers licensed but not yet producing, we will not receive revenues from them yet. I expect that we will see growth quarter over quarter, as our licensees continue to come online and ramp up.
I do not think that KK is motivated to help the share price at this time. He is motivated to convince the judge that his company and share holders are injured as a result of infringers. I would expect any day now, a request to include the 5th patent, followed by a request for decision for the preliminary injunction.
If the royalty % is confidential, then it must not be 20% across the board. GPRE is our biggest customer, and the first to sign up with GERS if I remember correctly.
Why would he not be billing GPRE at this time?
I find this interesting as well. Some of the licensees from 2010 are still not producing, or at the very least not at capacity?
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Year Ended December 31, 2011 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2010
as well as increases in revenue generated by new license agreements executed during 2011 and 2010. Revenue growth moving forward will also be affected by fluctuation in the market price for corn oil since the royalty income we generate is tied to sales of corn oil extracted by our licensees with our technologies.
At the risk of angering others, I am posting this from last years annual. Prior to reading and posting this several weeks ago, I too believed that revenues could be higher. After reading it over and over I have become convinced that we will achieve about the same revenues this year as we did last year, or even less, but our cost of goods will be lower. When you read the statement below, ask yourself what number revenues should decrease from, the obvious answer should be from $20 million. So, expect less then $20 million in revenues this year. GLTA
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Year Ended December 31, 2011 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2010
Total revenues for the year ended December 31, 2011 were $20.0 million as compared to $7.7 million generated during the year ended December 31, 2010. The increase in revenue during the year was due to the impact of new licenses executed during 2011, increased corn oil production by our licensees, the increased market value of corn oil, and the sale of our remaining facilities to YA Corn Oil Systems, LLC. While revenue in future periods can be expected to decrease as a result of the non-recurring nature of the results recognized in connection with the YA Corn Oil Transaction, we expect that this decrease will be offset by the concomitant decrease in costs of sales associated with the transfer of those agreements, as well as increases in revenue generated by new license agreements executed during 2011 and 2010. Revenue growth moving forward will also be affected by fluctuation in the market price for corn oil since the royalty income we generate is tied to sales of corn oil extracted by our licensees with our technologies.
Under license, not necessarily producing corn oil. Apples and oranges indeed!
The explanation of the lag was "if there was additional revenue that was not accounted for. There is still a great possibility of many of the licensees not fully operational. Some may have licensed before even ordering the COES. The fact that it was stated in the annual should satisfy the sane, while causing weaker minds to become insane.
Insanity: reading the annual over and over again, yet expecting different results.
Regardless of GPRE's cost, we can not determine the royalty rate that they are paying GERS. I am sure that it will never be disclosed publicly, as it could hurt GERS's ability to collect 20% on all other companies.
We did not hit that number in Q1 of last year either. Still 3 q's to go.
Revenues are up Q1 2012 over Q1 2011 3.0 to 2.7 respectively. The annual report suggested that revenues would be about the same this year, as it was last year.
The reason I continually argued that multiple payments of 1.6 million did not make sense is because there was no expected increase in revenue.
KK pitched this one right across the plate, and is now being accused of hiding revenue. Anyone that thinks that revenues should be higher this year should go back and read the annual report. It was written in plain English.
It appears that we are not receiving 20% from GPRE. The may have received a first signers discount.
Just because we have 2.3 billion gallons of ethanol under license, does not mean that the licensees are producing.
Our financial performance for the balance of 2012 and beyond can be expected to be most significantly impacted by the rate at which our existing and new licensees commence production, the amount of corn oil that our licensees produce, the market price for that corn oil, the extent to which we collect reasonable royalties, and the costs incurred in our ongoing litigation for infringement of our patents. In addition, future results may be improved by the impact of event-driven systems integration contracts as we continue to receive significant interest for our engineering and other services in connection with the design, construction, integration and modification of corn oil extraction systems and other new systems for existing and prospective licensees. We are currently party to a number of such agreements which can be expected to contribute to revenue during 2012.
Unfortunately, the number of shares will increase due to the drop in share price. It may not show today, but soon.
So far the only theory that is debunk is the claim of multiple payments to YAGI of 1.6 million dollars. This would be a great time to go back and read past posts on this subject, and ones understanding of the English language. GLTU
I will not be able to read the 10-Q for a while. I did see the 29 million plus in o/s, no surprise there. Can someone post how many 1.6 million dollar payments were made in the first quarter? There is no sense reading the new filing until I am sure I read the last filing correctly. Glta
I was just checking out the list of patents on the GREENSHIFT website. Can anyone explain why the "517" patent is not listed? It must exist, as each defendant has tried to get it added to the lawsuit. Strange.......
I guess that all shorts would want to cover today? Isn't there an incredible risk that the report would come out a day early? I'm guessing that would really burn the shorts, well...shorts!
That would make the most sense, the day before a report of record revenue.
That would be nice. Even the reduced amount of dilution is crippling the share price.
When you say hedging a bet, you mean trying to bring the price down to pick up some cheapies? I cannot wait to hear some of our expert shorting testimony today. It will be more entertaining then a three ring circus.
Petalman,
I usually try to stay out of the shorting argument because I do not know enough about shorting. I have to admit though that I would be hard pressed to believe that anyone would try and short a stock the day before a company's financials are expected out. Especially if this report is going to show record revenues.
Green
How does one determine how long the injunction will be in place, considering appeals? If litigation runs two years for 30 companies plus ICM, GEA Westfalia, and Flottweg I would guess that the number would be very substantial.
The good news is that wherever the money is going, it should be disclosed in the next filing. The last few filings have been on time, I would not be surprised if the next one is on time as well.