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.
Foward looking statemnts don't excuse a CEO of material ommisions. I think everyone here knows the risk in investing, especially in the pinks. Being a CEO of pinks still doesn't give JD the liscense to ignore his fiduciary responsibility and wanton disregard of the truth.
BTW, it doesn't matter if a company is trading on the pinks, otcbb, or Amex, it's the people running it that's ultimately responsible for its reputation.
Knowitall, please explain why you have so much confidence in Dial. Why don't you try persuading the board rather than reprimanding the board for not sharing the same sentiment.
Actions speak louder than words. Jim Dial shure haven't help make a case in his favor. The stock plummets 95% in a year and a half, and the CEO says he's not responsible. He puts out PRs after PRs that never come to fruition. He talks about making disclosure and becoming a fully reporting company...doesn't happen. He's supposedly had the financials audited, and promised to release the results...never happened. He looks shareholders in the eye and tells them Grifco has no debt, then we find out they're being sued for non-payment of debt. He looks the shareholder in the eye and promises CTBG dividend by Noevember at the latest...where is it?
We could go on and on about the failures. DD doesn't mean reading the PRs, and banking on the word of a CEO who doesn't deliver 99% of the time. The latest cert. debacle is stranger than fiction. It certainly doesn't seem to be squeezing the shorts. Quite the contrary. Quite simply, actions speak louder than words. To spin in any other way at this point is useless.
I think anyone that understand corporate governance, business ethics, and fiduciary responsibility can see the obvious. Proof is in the action. It's people like JD is why SEC regulations are so cumbersome, and why there are over 30,000 pages of FASB text, why PCAOB had to be created, and why Sarbanes Oxley is over 1,000 pages. If CEO's were truly honest and honorable; If the companies always behaved ethically, handshake is all we need.
stepan (YeNY11), why would anyone benefit from a face to face meeting of Trinytz? Once again, your assumptions are so far off base it's not even worth responding to. Speaking of "group" weren't you boasting on a RB board that you represent a hudge fund?
Print, now you can understand the logic of the arms-length transaction. RR can win the suit and ruin GFCI but JD will still have his little side venture in UERI and RR won't be able to touch the assets.
I'm sure BBB will come around soon to spin it in his usual literary way. He's like the YODA of the die hard optimists.
J.D. resigning as President of Global Oil Tools should be a newsworthy PR. IMO, that's more material than a $40K purchase order....or is it?
Sadly, the pumpers get mad when you bring up the past failures of Grifco. Actually, they haven't been successful executing anything they PR'ed in the past year or more. So in order to make a forecast as to where the company is heading you have to look at the past histrory. Of course, you sensible people here know that as a given.
I just can't believe how gulliable some folks are that's still excited about the latest Grifco PR. Even when you look at that fact that story has changed several times since early December i.e. partnership - warrants - dividend.
To 11 GFCI.pk mantra's uttered by the delerious longs today are
11 "die, shortie, shortie, die, shorties, shorites"
10 "shorites will burn"
9 "short squeeze is coming"
8 "I average down from $0.50/ share to $0.25...slashed my cost in half" (translation: I dumped more money into a dwindling stock to average my cost down).
7 "Let me enlighten you to the possibilities"
6 "98,9% success rate in the 283 wells we own after the spin-off...err, the warrants...no strike that..the dividend"
5 "I'm winning..."
4 "I may be down $200K but I'm riding it all the way to zero"
3 "time will tell...time will tell"
2 "I feel secure in knowing that RG Raymond and Jerry Swinford won't ever let anything bad happen to Grifco"
...and the number 1 quote by GFCI hopefuls are....
1 "Everything about GFCI and JD are true and real, I held his tool in my hand."
D-OH!
By: been_burned_before
13 Aug 2005, 09:59 PM EDT
Msg. 2159 of 21104
Jump to msg. #
Given the new O/S share count for GFCI . . .
A crude, yet enlightening, PPS valuation is revised.
Given all of the available information posted in the PR's, one can arrive at a crude valuation for a forward looking PPS. Just humor me, I know it is very, very crude, but I admit it is nevertheless very enlightening to consider the reasonable possibilities in GFCI's PPS looking forward.
GRIFCO Item (Count) $millions
Jet Motor (100) $48.00
RotorJet (~70) $ 3.20
PMC Screen $ 2.50
Pemex Mexico $ 2.50
Scuda Tool $ 2.00
Ko-Vac Unit $ 2.00
Silver Hawg $ 1.50
Misc. Tools $ 1.20
___________________________________
Total Yearly Revenue $62.90 million
___________________________________
Approx. Shares O/S 31.6 million
___________________________________
Probable EPS $ 1.99
___________________________________
EPS Multiple $PPS
1x $ 1.99
2x $ 3.98
3x $ 5.97
5x $ 9.95
10x $19.90
15x $29.85 (industry standard)
____________________________________
My, my! The possibilities we can truly expect!
Please understand that I am very well aware that I have not accounted for any income taxes, administrative and general expenses, interest expense on debt, or any other expenses related to doing business. Also, understand that I have neither included any exponential growth that may certainly result from GFCI's dealings with Libya, China, Venezuela, Canada, or from any potential increase in the orders of Jet Motors and/or any other promising tool.
Been_Burned_Before
By: been_burned_before
29 Nov 2005, 08:09 PM EST
Msg. 4431 of 27293
Jump to msg. #
Can anyone say, "UNDERVALUED"??
May I remind everyone that the fair market valuations for both GFCI and its new spin-off, CTTI, are much higher than the paltry valuations the market is now giving it at these levels. To summarize:
For GFCI: $3.20 per share
For CTTI: $1.14 per share
This is all figured by leaning on revenue projections that were taken from various PR's. For 2005, revenues for GFCI were projected to be $24.5MM (excluding CTTI), while for CTTI, they were projected to be $20.0MM.
Granted, these fair market valuations are also figured by assuming a conservative 35% net profit margin, an industry standard 28x trailing P/E multiple, as well as 37.57MM and 85.72MM shares O/S for GFCI and CTTI, respectively, and a hefty, 50% discount for being a mere Pink.
Even assuming that the revenue projections were overstated by as much as 100% (highly unlikely), we still have:
For GFCI: $1.60 per share
For CTTI: $0.57 per share
Furthermore, even going so far as to assume that the share count for GFCI is obnoxiously higher -- let's assume it is really 70MM shares O/S -- as well as also assuming revenue projections were overstated by as much as 100%, we still have:
For GFCI: $0.86 per share
For CTTI: $0.57 per share
And this is a worst-case scenario! And I am so confident that things are no where near this bad. Given all of the available evidence, I tend to lean toward the following as the most likely valuations (now, I understand it is not to say that they MUST be valued this way, but only that they SHOULD be valued this way!):
For GFCI: $3.00 per share
For CTTI: $1.00 per share
By: been_burned_before
30 Mar 2006, 10:14 AM EST
Msg. 9262 of 27293
Jump to msg. #
OK, now that we know . . .
the official share count for GFCI -- namely, 39.68 million shares o/s -- we can now make a fairly educated guess about the fair market value for GFCI, given the last bit of some unofficial news regarding financials. Not too far back in mid-September, Mike King of Princeton research put the word out via e-mail that GFCI's earnings for fiscal year ending June 30, 2005, were $4.4 million.
Given a median TTM P/E multiple for the Oil & Gas Equipment & Service Sector of 24x, let's go ahead and lean on over to the conservative side and give GFCI half that -- 12x. So we now have a fair market value of:
$4.4 million / 39.68 million shares x 12 P/E = $1.33 pps
Now, it's extremely important to understand that most small but growing and profitable companies will typically command much larger P/E multiples relative to their peers -- it's a fact that is true for practically all sectors, as behemoth companies will usually bear the smaller P/E multiples.
For just one example, consider this sector: Boots & Coots, a relatively small service company, commands a P/E multiple of 50x, while Schlumberger, a much larger behemoth of a company, only commands a P/E multiple of 32x. Given these facts, let's once again make a fairly educated guess about GFCI's fair market value potential, considering its plan to list on the AMEX, like Boots & Coots -- let's see what GFCI could be worth with a TTM P/E multiple of 50x:
$4.4 million / 39.68 million shares x 50 P/E = $5.54 pps
Now, what if we play as fair as possible and give GFCI the median TTM P/E multiple of 24x:
$4.4 million / 39.68 million shares x 24 P/E = $2.66 pps
I don't know about you all, but I am exceedingly encouraged by the awesome potential we have here. And I have not even yet mentioned our CTBG spin-off shares -- yes, that amazing 1.89 shares of CTBG that we get for each share of GFCI that we own. I leave that for another time.
Been_Burned_Before
Candid photo of the Grifco Insiders
John Jarvis
http://www.queencitytrader.com/wallpaper_MrHaney.jpg
Jim Dial
http://www.maggiore.net/greenacres/images/cast_kimball.jpg
Investors Relations: Ryan and Mike
http://www.maggiore.net/greenacres/images/e171.jpg
Site update is seamless. Webpages are usually updated/created offline at a local PC and ftp to the hosting site.
The problem is more than likely billing.
Dr Bill..LOL, you've talked to your adviser earlier this week and that's what he said? This discussion didn't start until yesterday..how perceptive of you guys.
Like to read your paper on Black Scholes Model? Quite impressive that you got from a M.D. to a published Financial mathematician.
Dr Bill did you read the rest of that post or did you just get stuck on stuck?
Len,
Ok I made a mistake in the presentation of the prior example. I f#$% up. There, I admit my mistakes.
So here is the correction:
Long Investor
buys stock one at $0.01 sells at 1.00 - 9,900% return
buys stock two at $100 sells at $1 - 99% loss
Your Short example:
sells stock at $1.00 buys stock at $0.01 (99% loss in value of the security, but as a short investor I made a 9,900% return, the same return as a long because of where I bought and sold).
sells stock at $1.00 buys at $100. (9,900% gain in value of the security, but as an investor I make the same return as the long because of where I bought and sold).
The whole point is that your assumption of what a short makes is based on the fact where his selling point is. That is incorrect. A short trades in reverse, which is he sells first and buys second, but when calculating his return you still based on the spread between his buy and sell.
OK Len, I'll help you out -
You don't solve the ROI by reducing it down to a ratio (percentage). Remember Grifco's PR that talked about a 500% increase in production? It doesn't give you any true qualatative charecterisitc of a number. Percentage is just a ratio of numbers. It relates the value in the numerate to the value in the denominate.
The right way to solve this would be
(gain from stock one + loss from stock two)/(investment in stock one+investment in stock two) = ROI
=(99+-.099)/(100-.01) = 98%
And you thought you had me didn't you. If Tampa approves it, you have to think twice about you conclusions.
Len, your logic is flawed. Fuzzy math is the very thing you're doing to try to win your point. To illustrate the error of your ways,
Let's look at a long position:
Stock one goes from $1 to $100 so he makes 100%
Stock two goes from $1 to $0.01 so he loses -100%
So on two IDENTICAL long investment he makes 100% on one, and loses 100% on the other. One would then conclude that the long made nothing since 100% loss washes the 100% gain.
That is the proof that your thought process is ungoldy screwed up and Wrong. Not only did he not break even, he made $98. He is up 98%. How is that, according to LEN, Mr Bill and the World it should be a wash? Well maybe if you think this through hard enough the light bulb will finally come on.
Dr Bill, the reason why the return seems infinite is because your example uses infinitely extreme numbers where you start at $100 and cover at 0.01. In the real world covering at 1/2 the value, which is about $50, would be exceptional.
Also, I don't believe you took a world survey to determine if they agree with me or not. However, I would agree that 80% of people with business degrees, and 99% of the people in general would agree with you. Not because you're right but because they don't understand the concept either.
I suggest you go talk to one of your finance professors at St. Bonnie.
Dr Bill, strictly looking at the numerical value, going from 100 to 0 is 100% of course. But the $100 isn't your money so you don't use that as a basis for your invested capital. From the investors standpoint if he only spent 0.01 to make $100, he increased his wealth by a factor of 10,000. If he only increased his wealth 100% he would have only made $10.
Once Again
3 people each open an investment account for $100,000. A few days later all three cash out the investment account which had grown to $110,000. The gain for all three is $10,000 or 10%. That's the numerical value. No matter how you look at it the gain is 10% on all three accounts....end of story This is where your stuck.
However, that's only part of the story, ROI tells you the rest of the story:
Guy #1 open the account by depositing $100,000 cash, so his ROI =(10,000/100,000) is 10%
Guy #2 opened the 100,000 account with $50,000 cash and $50,000 bank loan. He pays back the bank loan but gets to keep the $10,000 just like #1. His investment was $50,000. His ROI = (10,000/50,000) which is 20%
Guy #3 opened the account with $10,000 cash, $90,000 bank loan. He pays back the $90,000 but gets to keep the $10,000 gain so he in essence doubled his intial investment of $10,000 His ROI = (10,000/10,000) is 100%
Now apply this to your shorting example. You short $100 and cover at $0.10. Transaction - you borrowed a 100 shares $1 and later replace 100 shares @0.001.
$100 - is not your invested capital, it's what you borrowed.
$99.90 - is your gain
$0.10 is what you invested to cover your short.
Len, I think you're misunderstand boils down to this...
You are strickly looking at the yield on the $1. So in you're example you're just looking at the $1.00 saying, you can't lose any more than a $1 so the maximum loss is 100%. Everything is measured based on $1 being the starting point.
I'm talking about Retrun on Investment - ROI which measures how effectively you use capital to generate profit. It looks at what I spent to geneate my earning.
great words of wisdom from a man name dick.
Assuming you pay back the $100 the next day and you only had $0.03 to your name the day before you did indeed earn a return of 333,333%. That's called leveraging...using other people's money. The investment gained 100%, but your ROI is 333,333%. It only seems magic to you because you can't grasp the concept.
Maybe this will help you understand.
Mr Small and Mr Big both have $100,000 each to invest. They both buy a piece of land for $100,000. Mr Small, being risk adverse pays 100,000 cash. Mr Big understanding leverage, pays 10,000 cash and goes to the bank a gests a mortgage for the balance of 90,000. A year later they both sell for $110,000 - 10% more than their inital purchase price. Question: Did they both make a 10% return on their investment? Answer: NO!
Mr Small invested the entire $100,000 so he earned 10%
Mr Big invested only 10,000 and borrowed the rest. He made 10,000 off his 10,000 cash outlay for a return of 100%.
Let's assume Mr Big bought 9 other properties for the same price and terms. He has 90,000 left so he puts down 10,000 and finance 90,000. He spent his entire investment capital of 100,000. Year later he sold them all for 110,000 making a 10,000 profit on each of the ten properties. He would earn 10,000 x 10 = 100,000 on his 100,000 investment - 100% return. Meanwhie Mr Small used all his 100,000 to buy his property so his earning is limited to 10,000 - 10% return.
This is the last I'm going to post on it. It's getting too off topic.
len, risk = what you can potentially lose. If you short $100, you can certainly lose much more than $100. Therefore, you risk isn't limited to $100. More importantly, you're missing the whole point. You borrowed the stock not the $100. What you owe is the replacement of that stock. In fact, you earned the $100..now you have to determine what you're cost is going to be to replace the borrowed shares. This is determined when you cover. Therefore your cost of the transaction is going to be the covered price.
ROI is applicable to longs or shorts, you just plug in the variables. When you short you sell first and buy second. When you're long you buy first and sell second. Either way, you plug in the same variables in the formula. The sellinng price minus the purchase price (net profit) is in tne numerator and the purchase price is in the denomenator. The principle doesn't change.
What a short gains is not a reciprocal of what a long loses.
Dr Bill, who said it was figured in reverse? (eom)
Lent, you're talking apples and oranges. Your risk, in theory, is unlimited. It's not limited to $100 - the proceeds from the short sale. I think I explained the concept clearly enough, I even politely provided a link for you. We can agree to disagree. BTW, I do have degrees in Accounting and Economics - magna cum laude. The stuff I've been explaining is Finance 101.
J Sim, your assumption about cost basis is incorrect. Your numbers are also out of sync.
Dr. Bill, of course we're dealing with finite numbers so you're not literally going to have unlimited returns but I just assumed you being a proud graduate of St. Boneventure, you would already know that.
You short a stock you get $100 in the account. You cover at$.10 you get to keep $99.90. The results of the transaction is you spent $0.10 and made net $99.90, now how do you figure only a 100% retun from this transaction?
Lent. Statistics and Finance are completely different disciplines.
The maximum you can make shorting $100 is $99.9999...but your assumptions are wrong about how ROI is calculated.
Shorting 100 shares at a $1 is not equivalent making a $100 investment.
You borrow the shares and sell what you didn't own so you did not invest $100. You cover and replace what you borrowed at $0.10, your investment is $0.10. The $$ you paid to cover is your cost basis. Investment = Cost Basis. The difference between your cost basis and the selling price = your (short) gain.
Therfore, if your cost basis is $0.10 and you made $99.90, you made a 99,900% return.
Flip it around, you go long and buy 100 shares at 0.001 = $0.10. The investment turns into $100, (cost basis = $0.10, net profit = $99.90) you made a 99,900% return.
From the long's prespective he made a $100 invesment and it goes down to $0.10 he would have lost 99.9% of his investment. Most he can lose more than 100%. However, a long has virtually unlimited potential for a gain. A short has both the unlimited potential for a gain or loss.
If by your assertion the upside for a short is only 100% and downside is unlimited, it won't be worth the risk to short...agree.
If you want more detail on how ROI is calculated: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp
No, I know what I'm talking about fellows. You are thinking like a long. Return on Invesment can easily exceed 100% from a short perspective if the price goes down because his investment is established where he covers.
(It's impossible to have an infinite return btw.)
You have to think backwards. Bottom line is what you invest vs what you keep.
Return on Investment = (Gain-cost)/Investment
You make $99.90 on a $0.10 investment, you made considerably more than 100%.
Dr Bill, you can profit more than 100% from shorthing.
Your example: If you sell 100 shares at $1 = $100 and buy it back 100 at $001 for $0.10 you in effect made 99,900% profit.
You sell (short) at $100
You buy back (cover) at $0.10
Net Profit = $99.90
ROI= $99.90/.10 = 99,900%
trinity, it's common sense not negativity;
First of all it's illegal to short pinksheet stocks in the United States. Allegedly, you can do this through some rouge offshore brokerage but you or I don't have the connections or the resources to short a pinksheet stock.
Second, your assumption that shorts can't cover is ludicrous. GFCI is at an all time low. If the shorts sold their shares a month ago, they would have doubled their money.
third, some wishful people are looking for the Christmas miracle (the short squeeze). They think once the record date for the warrant is reached this stock will rocket north. Does that make any sense? If you knew a hitman was coming to get you a week from today, would you sit and wait until next week when arrives to react, or would you take action to avoid the situation a.s.a.p.?
Last but not least, why can't some people just accept the fact that it's the company and management. Why must there always be a consparicy behind a company's failure.
King Strongus....it closed just as I said
Posted by: cyofish
In reply to: None Date:12/14/2006 10:32:38 AM
Post #of 8279
Just as I expected, a huge volume in the a.m. and a sidway price movement. I didn't expect this stock to make a signficant jump from the PRs. ... I predict by the end of the week we would be back to where we were yesterday give or take a half a penny.
Question? If the PR is so fantastic, who would sell 2 million shares at a nickel? I mean a news like this, if reliable, we should see huge gains on big volume. We should see the a gap up at open and vertical line shooting straight up past the 200 day m/a. In another words, on any other exchange the stock should breakout and set new highs. With Grifco we have 2.7 million shares trading sideways which indicates just as many sellers as buyers.
Just as I expected, a huge volume in the a.m. and a sidway price movement. I didn't expect this stock to make a signficant jump from the PRs. They say that amatuers buy in the morning and the pros trade in the afternoon. It will be interesting to see where we are in the p.m. I predict by the end of the week we would be back to where we were yesterday give or take a half a penny.
hmmm, Grifco puts out a PR to buy back 5 million share, and 25 million shres all in the same week, yet some people maintain tha the float is only 8 - 11 million. It doesn't compute.
Bill, I agree. If share counts an issue the disclosure is not an issue. Natural tendency for any rational person to think is that if they don't want you to know they have something to hide.
best2l, just to clarify.
You replied to me with a quote except you used someone else's statement not mine.
Also, there are 2 schools of thought here;
One who believes Jim Dial owns the 56.5 million shares personally and pledged the shares to obtain the o&g lease.
Second is the school of thought that there are total 56.5 million shares outstanding and JD, as a majority sh and agent of the GFCI shareholder, had pledged all of the O/S shares of Grifco, pending the merger.
I'm believe the first to be true.
The sharecount was implied on 5/1/06 PR, well more than 7 months had passed. Anything could have happened since. The fact that Jim Dial will no longer confirm the count, the share count was provided for TTII but missing under Grifco in the 14A filing, and that Jim Dial was able to pledge 56.5 million shares (56.5MM > 38.6MM) susggest there were more share issued since 5/1.
B2L, it's quite possible that UERI & JD is acquiring the O & G leases, allowing it to merge into TTII first. This would add value to TTII. When they merge Grifco into TTII they can justify a R/S by the value of TTII's assets which includes UERI & O & G assets.
Dr Bill, you're assuming the shares were issued for the purpose of obtaining the O & G leases. JD could have received the shares as a form of compensation (I remember Jarvis issuing himself tons of shares with his shells), conversion of a warrant, excersised his stock options, or from other means.
The fact stated in the 14A is that JD pledged his personal shares and not Tresuary shares. Only I'm sure the Auditors will want a close look at the transaction.
As for legal actions, if this was a stock trading on the higher exchanges, with real financial statements, assets, and balance sheet, you will find attorneys and law firms that would take on a class action on a contingency basis. With this being a pinkie penny stock an attorney would want a retainer and billiable hours. There is too much risk and too little reward to take it as a contingency. It's hard to imagine an investors who spending $0.06/sh would agree to pool together tens of thousands of dollars to go after Dial. Even if all is successful it may wind up where the shareholders would have to split the proceeds of a forklift and a printing press 700 ways.