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.
You’re replying to me, yet you know I don’t care and that for me the game starts as soon as there is a final result in the lawsuit.
Let’s talk about volume when that happens okay?
Well congrats on your sell. Yes, my loss will be and probably already is way bigger then yours.
My hope is that one they, years from now there will be a big bounce.
For now it looks like even I was to optimistic about our chances to stay above 60 cents. For that we first need to get above 60 cents. Not just touching it.
“BTW, your statement that you're "holding all the way" is inconsistent with your pessimism on the price. Do you intend to keep holding if PEIX stock goes through a reverse split?”
Yes, my investment declined so much in value that It’s all or nothing for me. I’m not a daytrader. I suck in selling. I’ve been from around $5 to over $20 and back to where we are now.
Yes patents are all about who is first. After that, for a patent to be accepted it has to differ enough from one from another company to be accepted.
I was saying this because you said that GERS could be infringing on a patent from ICM.
However, since ICM explicitly stated: “The Advanced Oil System design and method falls outside of all patent claims of GreenShift Corporation’s patent” making one think that they have been very careful on this patent, to have it differ enough, that is doesn’t look like GERS’s patented technology, and isn’t an improvement based on that technology also, and since they never claimed GERS was infringing on their patent, there seems no reason whatsoever to believe GERS is infringing on ICM’s patent.
So speculating about this issue, is just the same as speculating on GERS infringing on any other corn oil separation patent by any other company. And has nothing to do with the lawsuit, where we were talking about.
I personally wouldn’t bet on that. However I’m holding all the way.
But my guess is the optimism will last only a few day’. We might stay a while longer above 60 cents, but I don’t think we will hit $1 before the RS is necessary.
Finally a beat on EPS again. Let’s see how far it brings PEIX. Will it be enough to bring them towards a close above or near $1 soon?
It would be nice, but also very surprising. But who knows.
It might give a nice spike today. Good chance to make some $ flipping. End of day probably much lower the today’s high.
PEIX EPS beats by $0.04, misses on revenue
Pacific Ethanol (NASDAQ:PEIX): Q2 GAAP EPS of -$0.17 beats by $0.04.
Revenue of $346.3M (-15.6% Y/Y) misses by $11.62M.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3484647-pacific-ethanol-eps-beats-0_04-misses-revenue
Pacific Ethanol Reports Second Quarter 2019 Results
Jul. 31, 2019 4:05 PM ETGlobeNewswirePacific Ethanol, Inc. (PEIX)
SACRAMENTO, Calif., July 31, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pacific Ethanol, Inc. (PEIX), a leading producer and marketer of low-carbon renewable fuels and high-quality alcohol products in the United States, reported its financial results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019.
Neil Koehler, Pacific Ethanol’s president and CEO, stated, “We continue to operate efficiently in the current poor margin environment by reducing our operating costs and targeting yield improvements, energy reductions, lower carbon intensities and increased sales of high-quality alcohol and feed products. The end result is that while crush margins improved only slightly in the second quarter our loss available to shareholders was $8.0 million, an improvement from a loss of $13.2 million in the first quarter and our adjusted EBITDA increased significantly to a positive $7.2 million in the second quarter, up from a positive $1.6 million in the first quarter.
“We are encouraged by the EPA’s final ruling on E15 in June to allow year-round sale and use of higher ethanol blends. The market is already experiencing some incremental demand as a result of this ruling, with material growth expected in the years to come. Long term, we remain confident that the compelling cost, octane and carbon benefits of ethanol will drive both new domestic and export demand and we are taking the necessary steps to best position Pacific Ethanol to benefit when market conditions improve.”
Financial Results for the Three Months Ended June 30, 2019 Compared to 2018
Net sales were $346.3 million, compared to $410.5 million.
Total gallons sold of 213.0 million, compared to 227.4 million.
Total production gallons sold of 129.8 million, compared to 144.4 million.
Cost of goods sold was $342.3 million, compared to $411.8 million.
Gross profit was $4.0 million, compared to a gross loss of $1.3 million.
Selling, general and administrative expenses were $6.7 million, compared to $8.9 million.
Operating loss was $2.7 million, compared to $10.2 million.
Loss available to common stockholders was $8.0 million, or $0.17 per share, compared to $13.2 million, or $0.31 per share.
Adjusted EBITDA was $7.2 million compared to $1.0 million.
Cash and cash equivalents were $16.5 million at June 30, 2019, compared to $26.6 million at December 31, 2018.
Financial Results for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2019 Compared to 2018
Net sales were $702.1 million, compared to $810.5 million.
Cost of goods sold was $700.4 million, compared to $808.5 million.
Gross profit was $1.7 million, compared to $2.1 million.
Selling, general and administrative expenses were $14.9 million, compared to $18.2 million.
Operating loss was $13.3 million, compared to $16.1 million.
Loss available to common stockholders was $21.2 million, or $0.45 per share, compared to $21.4 million, or $0.50 per share.
Adjusted EBITDA was $8.8 million, compared to $6.7 million.
Second Quarter 2019 Results Conference Call
Management will host a conference call at 8:00 a.m. Pacific Time/11:00 a.m. Eastern Time on August 1, 2019. CEO Neil Koehler and CFO Bryon McGregor will deliver prepared remarks followed by a question and answer session.
The webcast for the call can be accessed from Pacific Ethanol's website at www.pacificethanol.com. Alternatively, you may dial the following number up to ten minutes prior to the scheduled conference call time: (877) 847-6066. International callers should dial 00-1 (970) 315-0267. The pass code will be 1557678. If you are unable to participate on the live call, the webcast will be archived for replay on Pacific Ethanol's website for one year. In addition, a telephonic replay will be available at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 2, 2019, through 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 8, 2019. To access the replay, please dial (855) 859-2056. International callers should dial 00-1-(404) 537-3406. The pass code will be 1557678.
Use of Non-GAAP Measures
Management believes that certain financial measures not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") are useful measures of operations. The company defines Adjusted EBITDA as unaudited net income (loss) attributed to Pacific Ethanol before interest expense, provision (benefit) for income taxes, asset impairments, purchase accounting adjustments, fair value adjustments, and depreciation and amortization expense. A table is provided at the end of this release that provides a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to its most directly comparable GAAP measure. Management provides this non-GAAP measure so that investors will have the same financial information that management uses, which may assist investors in properly assessing the company's performance on a period-over-period basis. Adjusted EBITDA is not a measure of financial performance under GAAP and should not be considered as an alternative to net income (loss) or any other measure of performance under GAAP, or to cash flows from operating, investing or financing activities as an indicator of cash flows or as a measure of liquidity. Adjusted EBITDA has limitations as an analytical tool and you should not consider this measure in isolation or as a substitute for analysis of the company's results as reported under GAAP.
Anybody can and there are probably way more patents that involve corn oil extraction. But those patents including the one by ICM aren’t on trial here, so what’s the point? ICM never sued GERS, so no reason to go that way. It’s all speculation. The case against ICM however isn’t.
Whatever the case is, ICM didn't have a patent for corn oil extraction when GERS started to sue them in 2009.
ICM filed for their Corn Oil Separation Patent in 2011 which was granted in 2012.
They say about that patent "The Advanced Oil System design and method falls outside of all patent claims of GreenShift Corporation’s patent"
So there probably isn't also a reason for them to sue GERS for that.
ICM never claimed that the technology used by them wasn't infringing GERS patent, but they just said GERS's patents where unenforceable.
That's what their case is build upon.
So I guess that they do not need to turn over their patent to GERS if they loose, because they don't have a patent based on that technology. They just used the patented technology without a license.
Maybe, I don’t think it will happen. They will bring in everything they can to convince the judges in this case, including that, but I think they’ll lose, I don’t recall their written defense in the appeal going there also.
http://greenshift-gers.blogspot.com/2018/12/appeal-response-to-gers-update.html?m=1
But anyway, your question was: “wouldn't ICM have filed its' own lawsuit, claiming that Greenshift was infringing on its' own patented technology?”
It isn’t about the future is it?
“All they would have to do would be to have a patent issued to them. The process of receiving a patent would give ICM all the confidence they needed”
But they didn’t file against GERS did they?
And another green start of the day! Maybe we’ll get back to 0.60 before earnings are reported!
I’ve been working in Chicago once at a bar at North Jefferson street. It was close to some industry, but I guess Chicago is a large city. I think it was more at the east side of Chicago. Didn’t see any refinery. Loved the city however
It’s the ICM technology that’s infringing, and Nobody13378 once learned me that they even guarantee to their users that if they get problems using that technology, ICM would pay all costs.
I’m not sure if their technology is backed up with their patents, but I think that if they use patentable technology, they will have patented it.
They have been filing for similar technologies http://energy.agwired.com/2011/05/17/icm-files-for-corn-oil-seperation-patent/
“wouldn't ICM have filed its' own lawsuit, claiming that Greenshift was infringing on its' own patented technology?”
No, because GERS was first to patent it. Patents are all about who is first.
Patience, 2 cents will be up soon enough!
Yes! PEIX is green again!
“Assuming that Greenshift wins the lawsuit outright (which rarely happens), there might not be many financial or other resources to transfer. “
Like you’ve stated. One of thr infringers has a very low price to book value. If their assets are worth what the book value suggests, there might be enough resources available to sell to other companies that are now holding a license for using the GERS developed technology. So apart from the money available, there might be some ways to pay enough to make the shareholders happy.
“Remember, the lawsuit was filed because Greenshift accused two dozen other companies of infringing on its' own issued patents. If Greenshift wins, no patents would change hands.”
Many, most and maybe all of the infringers are using a infringing technology delivered by ICM which holds patents that could change hands.
I don’t think you can compare the tobacco industry case to this case. Because that isn’t about patent infringement.
Yea it would be better for GERS if the ethanol industry does well. But within a year, I think the industry does well enough to make us a lot of money (more then I can loose on PEIX for instance)
I don’t think GERS is yet big enough to lobby for the ethanol industry. But I think the voting people might have more luck to convince the politicians to change their ways.
“Your November 2017 estimate of the settlement will have to be adjusted to factor in the current (2019) financial resources of any company that settles with Greenshift.”
You forget to factor in that the companies have been infringing longer also, so it might be they would need to pay more.
Also, the calculation was done on a very conservative estimate. It’s likely that the real windfall would be way larger, since I don’t think that Cantor Collburn likes to take the risk they did for the money they would normally get payed by GERS. And CC aren’t rookies at this game.
“As you've said yourself on this board, the other companies are already suffering. “
That’s why I say it might be that GERS will own a few Ethanol companies after the litigation.
“All of this assumes that Greenshift wins the lawsuit. That's a prediction that I won't make. “
(Almost) everybody who bought in at GERS bought in because of the lawsuit. Biggest reason... they had to much debt, where diluting and where reporting losses every quarter. So why buying GERS if you know they where not making any profit? The only reason I can think of, is because you believe they can wain the lawsuit.
Also everybody knows the risk what happens if they loose. It means game over. Because their patent is worthless, they would loose clients they already have, and probably will not be able to pay of their debt.
So it’s a all or nothing game. Not suiting for those lacking the balls. With a huge profit if they win, and imho the odds to win are very high.
“It appears that the entire ethanol industry is under water. “
I’m so glad that the main play here isn’t the daily ethanol market, but the result of the lawsuit.
The infringers will be hurt way more by this trade war then GERS. When they need to pay GERS I think there is no money left, and they need to turn over their companies to GERS
Things are not looking too good for the Ethanol industry:
U.S. ethanol industry at breaking point, Green Plains CEO says
Jul. 29, 2019
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3482753-u-s-ethanol-industry-breaking-point-green-plains-ceo-says?dr=1#email_link
The U.S. ethanol industry is nearing a breaking point under the weight of the U.S.-China trade war and the surge in the number of small refineries exempted from U.S. biofuel laws, Green Plains (GPRE -2%) CEO Todd Becker tells Reuters.
The sustained downturn in margins finally will begin taking its toll as some producers run out of money: "Some plants will slow down, some will shut down, some will shut down forever," Becker says.
U.S. ethanol production in early June reached nearly 1.1M bbl/day, the highest seasonally on record, but margins to produce ethanol ETH-CB-REF are at the lowest seasonally since 2015, according to Refinitiv.
Becker says the industry has been undisciplined, continuing to ramp up production amid weak demand growth and growing supplies; GPRE has decided to cut production in the past, but this time it has the capital and operational plan to sustain weak or negative margins, the CEO says.
Other relevant tickers include ADM, GPP, PEIX, REGI, REX
How come?
1. So you agree your claim about YAGI hasn’t been converting bonds was false?
2. “If the company's financial health is good, any bond conversion would be counterbalanced by large-scale buying of the stock by members of the public who had just become bullish because they read the bullish facts and figures in those reports.”
That’s the biggest BS there is. Kevin stated there still is the possibility of dilution, so there still is a debt. If we go by the latest known numbers:
From the most recent 10K
https://www.greenshift.com/content/secfilings/pdf/GERS_10K_2015.pdf
“As of December 31, 2015, the Company had $1,877,991 in cash, and current liabilities exceeded current assets by about $11.5 million, which included derivative liabilities of $7,148,016 and $4,343,696 in convertible debentures”
Over 4.3 million dollar convertible debt means that even if it was all converted at 6 cents, it would increase the float with over 60 million shares. Meaning each share would be worth less than 1/4 of its value now. Also the litigation windfall for the common shareholders would be slashed by four.
That would be if it was all converted at the same price. And like I showed, no way that is going to happen.
You cannot buy against that.
Even the share price of the best performing companies in the world would crash if the float was 4 times as large all of a sudden. And since it crashes and the bonds wouldn’t all be converted at 6 cents, the float would increase way way more, making all of our shares practically worthless within a year, before the lawsuit ends.
Nobody talked about YAGI converting bonds now! On the contrary, we all were explaining that they can not convert now due to the absence of filings.
I told the value of one GERS share was 500 million dollar compared to 6 cents now, after all the reverse splits, caused by the dilution that appeared caused by YAGI converting bonds
The claim made by you was that “YAGI hasn't converted any Greenshift bonds into stock.”
That claim is FALSE!
“YAGI hasn't converted any Greenshift bonds into stock.”
WRONG!
http://getfilings.com/sec-filings/110401/GREENSHIFT-CORP_10-K/
“During the year ended December 31, 2010, YA Global Investments, L.P. (“YA Global”) converted 658,678,086 shares of stock for a total of $720,932 that was credited against the YAGI convertible debentures.”
I wrote “They don't care the price drops.”.
As a proof I showed you that while they have been converting bonds price dropped from at least $500.000.000 a share to 6 cents today.
If that isn’t enough proof for you, I don’t care.
But what matters is that there is absolutely no reason to believe that after years of dilution caused by YAGI converting bonds, YAGI would suddendly convert their bonds all at a level above 1 cent like you’ve said
“As I've said many times, Kevin's prediction of the dilution that would occur at certain GERS stock prices is inadequate because it fails to mention the sharply reduced amount of dilution that would occur at prices higher than 1¢. For example, if his math is accurate, then if the stock price is 10¢, only 160 million shares would be added to his total of 30 million outstanding shares by the owners of convertible bonds. “
If you have proof showing that YAGI would act different this time, you are welcome to share it.
But my guess is you can’t.
And you can’t explain why YAGI would change their ways.
“As I've said many times, Kevin's prediction of the dilution that would occur at certain stock prices is inadequate because it fails to mention the sharply reduced amount of dilution that would occur at prices higher than 1¢.”
I guess you’ll never get it that YAGI doesn’t convert all bonds at once.
They are the major holder of these bonds and spread converting out over a large period of time.
If you want to know how that works out, just look at the previous reports showing the OS when YAGI was still able to convert those bonds. They where the ones leading us into RS after RS. Nothing else. What makes you think it would be different if they would be able to convert now?
Yep, but a PR about the status would be nice I guess. And if you release a PR which sweetened up with a positive outlook, it would be nice if it came true, don’t you think? Otherwise it’s just lying, which to me seems worst then not sending out any PR at all, don’t you think?
What about a CEO that files but stays quiet about a a pending lawsuit against them. Keeps posting positive PR’s even though they never pay off. Misses on EPS over and over again and isn’t able to avoid a RS?
Greenshift has it all! The mystery, the adventure, the risk, the potential, the highs, the lows (still higher the my original entry point). If it was a tv serie it would have won a Emmy Award for sure. I’m happy to be a part of it.
My other Ethanol investment only knows how to move down. Reports but always moves down and heads for a new RS. What’s the fun in that.
With GERS we know that we will be up towards $0.09 again soon. Probably next week. So no need to worry. It’s all entertainment until the grand finale.
Interesting. Only the moderators can and are allowed to change the intro section. So it has to be one of them. My guess is It was Slashnuts. He seems the most active on all updates.
I thought we already where discussing it. PEIX will probably miss on EPS expectations and even if they don’t, they will not move up very long. They might beat on revenue, but EPS is more important. They will not gain enough to avoid a RS. Best time to buy is the dip before earnings, best time to sell one or two days before earnings.
If earnings are received positive, which sometimes happens even with a miss, a 10 percent rise in share price would be a nice profit, holding much longer will be risky. Beginning of the day after earnings you’ll see a lot of speculation. End of the day is more steady. But what ever happens, it is back to business as usual within 3 or 4 days.
Yes it does...every board on ihub has that intro section.
You can turn it off and on here with the link on the right at the top of each company page:
It’s the way the site is designed, so that new investors can see the companies information (placed by board members) and those who don’t want to see it can choose to hide it.
Very user friendly.
I could think of more things to hide by the way.
For those who can’t find the button, or don’t get it, I recommend calling the Federal Bureau of Internetsites.
“Any past predictions by individual investors are useless for people who want to make a buy-sell decision in this stock or any other stock.”
No. Saying: “Their next SEC filing will show a year-over-year improvement in the quarterly results. IMO.”
Based on: “Better terms for Pacific Ethanol's debt will produce an improved quarter. You should've read their March 27th press release and their July 15th press release.
You should also have read their Schedule 13-G, filed on the 18th, which documents a new 5% owner, under SEC Rule 13d-1b, which covers just over 4 million shares, and as predicted by the July 15th press release, an 8-K report, which includes this statement.”
Is put in perspective if you also read previous posts which where sure of a stock rally based on previous PR’s and other information.
Combine that with someone telling in advance that these predictions where off, based on years of investing in PEIX and a long term experience in their PR’s and a good track record in predicting this stocks direction, and it isn’t as useless as you think.
But hey, we’re going to have the same chatter after the results again about PEIX heading for a RS, and you saying they must go up because of their price to book ratio. Finally it ends with a RS.
At least the price moves huh?
LMAO, nothing has changed to the GERS board, it’s an option you can activate by yourself, but hey... think whatever you like. Maybe sombody did ask the FBI to change it.